Re: What is thinking ?
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote: On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote: Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define time. In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)) ... is enough, notably to named the steps of execution of the UD (UD*), or of the programs execution we can see in UD*, or equivalently in a tiny subset of arithmetical truth. Are you saying time-order corresponds to the order of execution of steps in the UD? The first person time-order is given by the relative measure on the computations. But this relies on all computations, and they need a third person time-order, and I am just saying that this one is reducible by the natural number order. I don't see how that can be consistent with your idea that our sequence of conscious experiences corresponds to a closest continuation of a our present state. Our present state is supposedly visited infinitely many times by the UD. Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the physical time too, as the whole physics emerges from the first person plural indeterminacy. But to define computation, we need a thrid person time, and for this one, as the UD illustrates, we need only the natural number canonical order: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote: On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work. It's personal. It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not work and to be supported by others. That's the point of making a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical (consistent with social values, 3p). OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you). By OK with you I mean you are free to use personal definition orthogonal to the use of the majority. By orthogonal I mean ... Hmm... BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. But a single example doesn't tell one much about social policy. I certainly wouldn't conclude that smoking lots of pot will improve your academic production. You are right (in the usual sense of the words). As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. It's also encouraged by being drunk. True, but I don't see the relevance. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, and stateless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy. Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, that is anomie. Quentin Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/**stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days. Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer: Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto- phage (eating themselves): http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper) And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this: http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/ I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer. Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too. Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The one found have been debunked: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs probably isn't good for them. Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is indeed quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But then when statistics are done on large human pot smokers population, not only cancers don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed. The probable explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer than the oncogen molecules. By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as anti-nausea, which of course helps to cure the cancer, while there were a half-dozen other drugs that might have killed the cancer cells. It is hard to derive a general proposition from one case. You might be right, but it seems that THC injection might just be more efficacious against cancer than chemo and radio therapies. Some plant like cannabis and salvia seems to have strong beneficial influence of the immune system, but of course we have still a lot to learn. From 1800 to 1900, it seems that most medication was based on hemp, and that might be true since a much longer time. The illegality of cannabis is a recent phenomenon, entirely based on lies. It is not more dangerous than beer, and actually much less dangerous. People habituated to cannabis does not get problem with liver, blood, brain, etc. It is, as an inebriant, *much safer than alcohol. Anyway, drugs problem is a problem of health, not of criminality. Addiction is easy to cure, when you don't make the cure illegal, like in the US and Belgium, where Tabernanthe iboga is illegal, despite one session with it cures addiction. Prohibition leads to corruption and black money addiction. It is a killer of democracy. Bruno On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The media talk about anything. You're going off the rails there, Bruno. There's no way cannabis cures cancer. If anything, smoking marijuana will cause lung cancer - though maybe not so much as tobacco. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days. Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer: Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage (eating themselves): http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper) And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this: http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/ I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer. Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too. Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The one found have been debunked: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs probably isn't good for them. Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is indeed quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But then when statistics are done on large human pot smokers population, not only cancers don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed. The probable explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer than the oncogen molecules. Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint with mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in those studies ? How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies representative of the cannabis smockers ? Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does it affect the result ? Prohibition is bad, not because cannabis could cure cancer, it's bad because it destroy live for stupid reasons. Quentin By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as anti-nausea, which of course helps to cure the cancer, while there were a half-dozen other drugs that might have killed the cancer cells. It is hard to derive a general proposition from one case. You might be right, but it seems that THC injection might just be more efficacious against cancer than chemo and radio therapies. Some plant like cannabis and salvia seems to have strong beneficial influence of the immune system, but of course we have still a lot to learn. From 1800 to 1900, it seems that most medication was based on hemp, and that might be true since a much longer time. The illegality of cannabis is a recent phenomenon, entirely based on lies. It is not more dangerous than beer, and actually much less dangerous. People habituated to cannabis does not get problem with liver, blood, brain, etc. It is, as an inebriant, *much safer than alcohol. Anyway, drugs problem is a problem of health, not of criminality. Addiction is easy to cure, when you don't make the cure illegal, like in the US and Belgium, where Tabernanthe iboga is illegal, despite one session with it cures addiction. Prohibition leads to corruption and black money addiction. It is a killer of democracy. Bruno On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The media talk about anything. You're going off the rails there, Bruno. There's no way cannabis cures cancer. If anything, smoking marijuana will cause lung cancer - though maybe not so much as tobacco. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: CTMU
Hi Alberto G. Corona He seems to have left out the personal universe of subjectivity. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 14:24:30 Subject: CTMU I? reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, ?hich present? theory of everything which includes the mind: http://www.ctmu.net/ Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at least it is interesting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Hating the rich
Hating the rich is the new racism. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. ? Why does anything need to leave Platonia? OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again, this beg the question: why do you think anything has even leave Platonia? Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some angle/ pov). How does encoding come to be a possibility Because it exists provably once you assume addition and multiplication, already assumed by all scientists. and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal language of arithmetic truth). ? Why should it be useful? Are babies useful? Are the ring of Saturn useful? Comp doesn't account for realism, only a toy model of realism which is then passed off as genuine by lack of counterfactual proof - but proof defined only by the narrow confines of the toy model itself. It is the blind man proving that nobody can see by demanding that sight be put into the terms of blindness. You don't give a clue why it would be like that, except building on the gap between 1 and 3 view, but my point is that universal machine or numbers are already astonished by such gap. They can only say that they live it without being able to justify it, nor even to define precisely what their 1-view can be, until they bet on mechanism, and understand (already) why it has to be like that. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Is evolution moral ?
Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Bruno Marchal From the standpoint of Leibniz's metaphysics, God is necessary because He runs the whole show. In that case, the concept of gap is irrelevent. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:11:51 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Bruno Marchal I would answer by saying that even unconscious entities, such as an immune system, can enhance life, and so IMHO are good (moral) while cancer, which tends to deminish life, is bad or evil. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 15:03:20 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi Roger On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware, just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive. And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code, can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually be alive. Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies, which seem to be alive but are not actually so. The problem is that you cannot know that. In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something conscious, as that can generate suffering. There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking very much like humans. An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people who might believe that such machine is alive. He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that they have no problem with such question. As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital brain transplant). When will machine get the right to vote? When the Lutherans will baptize machines? Etc. Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect for you. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it's functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant,
Re: Good is that which enhances life
On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard Richard, Have you ever jumped from a plane without a parachute? If not you are not qualified to comment. But I agree with you, cannabis is a life appetizer, it enhances life, so Roger should promote it. Of course some people can abuse and have problem, but persons can have problem with theyr roof and windows too, and nobody claims that this is a reason to make it illegal. For many sick people, cannabis enhances their life where no other medication can. I know people who have resume their life through it after long time depression. There are tuns of witnessing on Youtube. I am not a fan of cannabis. But I am a fan of valid argument, and I have a collection of paper on cannabis which I used to illustrate the ten thousand way to make rhetorical non valid argument. But here, alas, your pro-pot argument is not valid. For example, I have never try, nor intend to ever try, krokodil, as it is easy to understand that it is a real nasty product which should be avoided. Krokodil is easy to do with very common products, and it appeared due to the prohibition of heroin, like wood-alcohol (brew) appeared during alcohol prohibition. Cannabis is also an example that democracies are not vaccinated against propaganda and brainwashing. It points on a quite serious defect of politics. Bruno On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 Subject: Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/ insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies, which seem to be alive but are not actually so. The problem is that you cannot know that. Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal in your attribution of machine sense. Oh? may be Hitler knew in his bones that Jewish were a problem. You have weird argument. In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something conscious, as that can generate suffering. It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other real people burn alive. I don't see why saving a machine from fire would prevents me to save children and woman first, as I feel closer to them. But then if I can, after, save a machine, why not. You are the one talking like if you knew that machines are forever zombies/puppets. There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking very much like humans. An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people who might believe that such machine is alive. He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that they have no problem with such question. As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital brain transplant). When will machine get the right to vote? When will the machine demand the right to vote? ? In the year 4024. Perhaps. Or in the year 4024. I don't care. It is not relevant for the issue. With the comp theory, some machines, us, have already the right to vote. When the Lutherans will baptize machines? When will they demand to be baptized? When Lutherans will listen to them, and become sensible to their delicate souls. Etc. Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect for you. Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you are selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah. In the comp theory we are machines, so all this already happened. You just reiterate your non-comp assumption, presenting it as a truth, but in science we never do that. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it′s functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ?
Hi Craig Weinberg Language, as you suggest, is an important part, even the foundation, of thinking. And indeed, Peirce said that we think in symbols. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:25:09 Subject: Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ? I think that thinking can be best understood as hypothetical feeling. If you start from sensation and allow that through time, memory would elide separate instances of sense together, giving us meta-sensation or emotion. This can be thought of as an emergent property, as a melody is an emergent property of a sequence of notes, but this is not enough to explain what it really is. It makes just as much sense to see the individual notes as mere stepping stones to recover the richer sense of melodies. It works both ways, gestalts pulling algebraically from the top down and fragments pushing geometrically from the bottom up. From emotional gestalts, we get mental gestalts, which are essentially placeholders for emotions. Evacuated logical frameworks which we use like formulas to attach our awareness as lenses and prisms manipulate light. Thoughts have no extension in space, they literally aren't structures in space, they are metaphorical tropes through time. Think of how the advent of language extends experience beyond the present. In a paleolithic tribe, even if I can gesture and grunt, it can only be assumed that I am communicating about something imminent and local. With language and writing we can hear voices from centuries ago and far away. We can replace the concrete fluidity of our shared realism with bubbles of hypothetical possibility. We can feel emotions that we are not realistically justified in feeling. We can plan and conspire to create things to be rather than just what already is. Mind is emotion squared. Emotion is sensation squared. Sensation is detection squared. Semiconductors detect, living cells feel, nervous systems think. This is simplified of course, the reality is a much subtler continuum. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C0IM36eeQmYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is evolution moral ?
Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, becomes a part of our moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these activities of acting for the good of the group. This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the tribe. In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund evolutionary as well as moral sense. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to
Re: Re: Good is that which enhances life
Hi Richard and Bruno Marchal, IMHO if pot enhances life, it is good --at least for that activity, such as in treating cancer. I suppose relaxation would also be good, not sure. But the danger is that pot if smoked regularly may become addictive, which is not good since it diminishes life. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:09:01 Subject: Re: Good is that which enhances life On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard Richard, Have you ever jumped from a plane without a parachute? If not you are not qualified to comment. But I agree with you, cannabis is a life appetizer, it enhances life, so Roger should promote it. Of course some people can abuse and have problem, but persons can have problem with theyr roof and windows too, and nobody claims that this is a reason to make it illegal. For many sick people, cannabis enhances their life where no other medication can. I know people who have resume their life through it after long time depression. There are tuns of witnessing on Youtube. I am not a fan of cannabis. But I am a fan of valid argument, and I have a collection of paper on cannabis which I used to illustrate the ten thousand way to make rhetorical non valid argument. But here, alas, your pro-pot argument is not valid. For example, I have never try, nor intend to ever try, krokodil, as it is easy to understand that it is a real nasty product which should be avoided. Krokodil is easy to do with very common products, and it appeared due to the prohibition of heroin, like wood-alcohol (brew) appeared during alcohol prohibition. Cannabis is also an example that democracies are not vaccinated against propaganda and brainwashing. It points on a quite serious defect of politics. Bruno On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 Subject: Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self,
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
William, On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything incoherent with this, please quote me. Bruno wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 30 Aug 2012, at 23:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants. in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired programs. codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing homogeneity for a single specie). These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are the moral code. These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive. That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared. To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul. What happens a broad variety of moral behaviours are really the expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology The adapted mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close to ours, the rules are quite normal. Both the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a normal society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system. Thanks to the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that await a development of evolutionary morals Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality. I agree with this. But we must not confuse compuational analogies, which can be inspiring but are analogies only, and the comp hypothesis, where we bet we digitally truncable at some level. the second assertion does indeed break many computer analogies, like it breaks down digital physics, or the idea that consciousness is a program or a computation. Bruno Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or exhale. This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game theory. To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated fairly and unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters worthy of disgust, shame, etc). We must understand how super- signifying images are telegraphed socially through and second-hand exaggeration and dramatization, of story-telling and parenting, demagoguery, religious authority, etc. Morality is politics. It is the subjective topology which elevates and lowers events, objects, people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce our own behavioral control before outside authorities need to. It isn't only a mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with computation. It is experience. That is all there is. Consciousness, as a first person experience, is provably not a computable phenomenon. This is a consequence of comp, not an argument against it. One can experience the computation of other experiences, but without experience, there is no access to computation. That is arithmetical solipsism, and is wrong in the comp theory. Bruno Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5ukgWqsvjuUJ .
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Hi Alberto G. Corona Adam Smith showed that enlightened self-interest, contrary to what a liberal might think, benefits all. The buyer gains goods, the seller gains capital. Society is eventually enriched as well. Man would never have survived with such all-enriching market trading. Ayn Rand went overboard on the self-interest aspect, advocating selfishness and self-esteem as goals to strive for. I don't think that greed and egotism enhance life, though. On the other hand, Rand's conservative economics was top rate. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:23:23 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, ?ecomes a part of our moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these activities of acting for the good of the group. This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the tribe.? In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund evolutionary as well as moral sense.? 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal ? If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life,? then not working tends to be immoral. ? It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. ? I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction.? Moral is what I expect of myself.? Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people.? They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical.? But they are not the same.? If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.? As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order ?o commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have
Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Bruno Marchal Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive a bus through. However, you keep ignoring my objections, only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ? The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as with the computer. Letters can't think. A thinker is needed. To repeat, code by itself can't control anything. The code is no different than a map without a reader. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence William, On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules ? ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything incoherent with this, please quote me. Bruno wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Craig Weinberg You're on the right track, but everybody from Plato on says that the Platonic world is timeless, eternal. And nonextended or spaceless (nonlocal). Leibniz's world of monads satisfies these requirements. But there is more, there is the Supreme Monad, which experiences all. And IS the All. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:53:09 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Craig On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:54:32 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: What is thinking ? Parmenides thought that thinking and being are one, which IMHO I agree with. Thoughts come to us from the Platonic realm, which I personally, perhaps mistakenly, associate with what would be Penrose's incomputable realm. Here is a brief discussion of technological or machine thinking vs lived experience. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/00201740310002398#tabModule IMHO Because computers cannot have lived experience, they cannot think. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy Volume 46, Issue 3, 2003 Thinking and Being: Heidegger and Wittgenstein on Machination and Lived-Experience Version of record first published: 05 Nov 2010 Heidegger's treatment of 'machination' in the Beitr?e zur Philosophie begins the critique of technological thinking that would centrally characterize his later work. Unlike later discussions of technology, the critique of machination in Beitr?e connects its arising to the predominance of 'lived-experience' ( Erlebnis ) as the concealed basis for the possibility of a pre-delineated, rule-based metaphysical understanding of the world. In this essay I explore this connection. The unity of machination and lived-experience becomes intelligible when both are traced to their common root in the primordial Greek attitude of techne , originally a basic attitude of wondering knowledge of nature. But with this common root revealed, the basic connection between machination and lived-experience also emerges as an important development of one of the deepest guiding thoughts of the Western philosophical tradition: the Parmenidean assertion of the sameness of being and thinking. In the Beitr?e 's analysis of machination and lived-experience, Heidegger hopes to discover a way of thinking that avoids the Western tradition's constant basic assumption of self-identity, an assumption which culminates in the modern picture of the autonomous, self-identical subject aggressively set over against a pre-delineated world of objects in a relationship of mutual confrontation. In the final section, I investigate an important and illuminating parallel to Heidegger's result: the consideration of the relationship between experience and technological ways of thinking that forms the basis of the late Wittgenstein's famous rule-following considerations. everything-list Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/WEvmwMTgZdoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Totally in agreement. The problem is that the market has not good cognitive/moral support in human psichology, because it is very recent. For one side, men acting in markets feels themselves as selfish and the winner is envied. This has´nt to be so, because engaging in the market is very good for the group. In the contrary, in sports and politics both things don´t happens in general:. the participants has a sense of participation in a almost religious activity, and the winners are admired. the losers are appreciated too. As a consequence, free market advocates, like Ayn Rand intelectualize their point of view by positivizing bare selfishness, which is an error, because not all kinds of selfishness are good overall. These simplifications are a result of the absence of a science of moral. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Adam Smith showed that enlightened self-interest, contrary to what a liberal might think, benefits all. The buyer gains goods, the seller gains capital. Society is eventually enriched as well. Man would never have survived with such all-enriching market trading. Ayn Rand went overboard on the self-interest aspect, advocating selfishness and self-esteem as goals to strive for. I don't think that greed and egotism enhance life, though. On the other hand, Rand's conservative economics was top rate. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-31, 05:23:23 *Subject:* Re: Is evolution moral ? Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, 燽ecomes a part of our moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these activities of acting for the good of the group. This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the tribe.� In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund evolutionary as well as moral sense.� 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal � If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life,� then not working tends to be immoral. � It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. � I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction.� Moral is what I expect of myself.� Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people.� They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical.� But they are not the same.� If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?� BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days. Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer: Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto- phage (eating themselves): http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper) And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this: http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/ I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer. Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too. Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The one found have been debunked: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs probably isn't good for them. Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is indeed quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But then when statistics are done on large human pot smokers population, not only cancers don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed. The probable explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer than the oncogen molecules. Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint with mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in those studies ? How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies representative of the cannabis smockers ? Those studies have compared also the difference between pure cannabis smoker and those who mix it with pot. In the US there are a lot of people who does not mix cannabis and tobacco. In Belgium also, and more and more as people get aware that tobacco is a hard drug (toxic and addictive). I have almost never mix them, and when I did, I have develop a strong addiction to such a mix, and quickly come back to separate them. The illegality of cannabis makes hard to explain to young people, who see their parent smoking tobacco and terrorised by cannabis, that the real drug in a joint is tobacco. I have try to prevent my nephews, but they laughed at me. Now they are grown up, and understand. Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does it affect the result ? Yes, but it is already quite different. They don't get addicted to MJ. Only to tobacco. Prohibition is bad, not because cannabis could cure cancer, it's bad because it destroy live for stupid reasons. It is bad for many reasons. Jefferson said: If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. Thomas Jefferson And the founders of US were strongly opposed to prohibition, which they made anticonstitutional: Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded -Abraham Lincoln Prohibition might have been one of the reason why JFK has been murdered, and it is a tool for getting power, makes huge benefices and control the society by non democratic means. It is a criminal Trojan horse to control the government. Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan, and then Bush, have all ordered studies on cannabis and alcohol, and their own studies have revealed that cannabis was nothing as dangerous compared to alcohol, but they have throw the studies in the trash, and then ordered new pseudo-studies to more obedient (pseudo) scientists. Bruno Quentin By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as anti-nausea, which of course helps to cure the cancer, while there were a half-dozen other drugs that might have killed the cancer cells. It is hard to derive a general proposition from one case. You might be right, but it seems that THC injection might just be more
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Progressivism is another word for Utopianism. Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked, or worked for long. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 14:23:33 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus rational etc. The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective. An there is such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in particular universal values) where not social facts). Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of modern gnosticism, called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases, that believes possible in a certain future a society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral unnecessary. I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Hating the rich
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:45, Roger Clough wrote: Hating the rich is the new racism. No, as rich exists in all classes, and in all societies. Hating the rich is either the very old jealousy, or sometimes the natural hate of bandits when the rich have become rich through lies and stealing, or when they use their fortune to get richer by dishonest means (like with prohibition, whose benefits in mostly reinjected in corrupting government to continue prohibition). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days. Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer: Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage (eating themselves): http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper) And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this: http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/ I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer. Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too. Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The one found have been debunked: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs probably isn't good for them. Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is indeed quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But then when statistics are done on large human pot smokers population, not only cancers don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed. The probable explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer than the oncogen molecules. Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint with mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in those studies ? How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies representative of the cannabis smockers ? Those studies have compared also the difference between pure cannabis smoker and those who mix it with pot. In the US there are a lot of people who does not mix cannabis and tobacco. In Belgium also, and more and more as people get aware that tobacco is a hard drug (toxic and addictive). I have almost never mix them, and when I did, I have develop a strong addiction to such a mix, and quickly come back to separate them. The illegality of cannabis makes hard to explain to young people, who see their parent smoking tobacco and terrorised by cannabis, that the real drug in a joint is tobacco. I have try to prevent my nephews, but they laughed at me. Now they are grown up, and understand. Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does it affect the result ? Yes, but it is already quite different. They don't get addicted to MJ. Only to tobacco. Prohibition is bad, not because cannabis could cure cancer, it's bad because it destroy live for stupid reasons. It is bad for many reasons. Jefferson said: If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. Thomas Jefferson And the founders of US were strongly opposed to prohibition, which they made anticonstitutional: Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded -Abraham Lincoln Prohibition might have been one of the reason why JFK has been murdered, and it is a tool for getting power, makes huge benefices and control the society by non democratic means. It is a criminal Trojan horse to control the government. Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan, and then Bush, have all ordered studies on cannabis and alcohol, and their own studies have revealed that cannabis was nothing as dangerous compared to alcohol, but they have throw the studies in the trash, and then ordered new pseudo-studies to more obedient (pseudo) scientists. I agree with all of that... but as you cite tobacco as a hard drug, same thing, I'm against prohibition for alcohol and tobacco... the bad thing about prohibition is that it criminalize that behavior, it doesn't become good because it is a hard drug. Regards, Quentin Bruno Quentin By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis
Re: Is evolution moral ?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. OK. Again, this makes cannabis moral, as some (sick if you want) people come back through work thanks to it. usually people with parkinson, cancers, depression, (Cannabis cures more than 2000 diseases, and improves the condition of much more sickness and debilitating conditions). That was the point. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. OK. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:58, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal From the standpoint of Leibniz's metaphysics, God is necessary because He runs the whole show. In that case, the concept of gap is irrelevent. No problem with this. With comp, arithmetical truth runs the whole show, in some sense. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:11:51 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form � i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I would answer by saying that even unconscious entities, such as an immune system, can enhance life, and so IMHO are good (moral) while cancer, which tends to deminish life, is bad or evil. Sure. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 15:03:20 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi Roger On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware, just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive. And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code, can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually be alive. Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies, which seem to be alive but are not actually so. The problem is that you cannot know that. In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something conscious, as that can generate suffering. There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking very much like humans. An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people who might believe that such machine is alive. He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that they have no problem with such question. As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital brain transplant). When will machine get the right to vote? When the Lutherans will baptize machines? Etc. Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect for you. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it′s functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When
Re: Good is that which enhances life
On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard and Bruno Marchal, IMHO if pot enhances life, it is good --at least for that activity, such as in treating cancer. I suppose relaxation would also be good, not sure. But the danger is that pot if smoked regularly may become addictive, which is not good since it diminishes life. There are no evidences for this. On the contrary. The oldest woman ever in the world, when asked what is her secret of health, said that she smokes one joint everyday since the age of 13. She was 118 years old. She dies recently ... in good health, said the doctor. A case is not a statistics, but the statistics confirm this. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:09:01 Subject: Re: Good is that which enhances life On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard Richard, Have you ever jumped from a plane without a parachute? If not you are not qualified to comment. But I agree with you, cannabis is a life appetizer, it enhances life, so Roger should promote it. Of course some people can abuse and have problem, but persons can have problem with theyr roof and windows too, and nobody claims that this is a reason to make it illegal. For many sick people, cannabis enhances their life where no other medication can. I know people who have resume their life through it after long time depression. There are tuns of witnessing on Youtube. I am not a fan of cannabis. But I am a fan of valid argument, and I have a collection of paper on cannabis which I used to illustrate the ten thousand way to make rhetorical non valid argument. But here, alas, your pro-pot argument is not valid. For example, I have never try, nor intend to ever try, krokodil, as it is easy to understand that it is a real nasty product which should be avoided. Krokodil is easy to do with very common products, and it appeared due to the prohibition of heroin, like wood-alcohol (brew) appeared during alcohol prohibition. Cannabis is also an example that democracies are not vaccinated against propaganda and brainwashing. It points on a quite serious defect of politics. Bruno On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 Subject: Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/ power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My
A little greed is good
Hi Alberto G. Corona Competition incites a desire to win (incentive) ,which is very healthy (ie good), at least to a degree. This is contrary to liberal thought, which holds that if we are all equal, there should be no winners or losers. For a little greed is what causes people to buy stocks, so a little greed is good. Greed is necessary due to the fear of taking such a risk. And to sell when things look too risky. Economics is in fact a psychological science. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:53:23 Subject: Re: Re: Is evolution moral ? Totally in agreement. The problem is that the market has not good cognitive/moral support in human psichology, because it is very recent. For one side, men acting in markets feels themselves as selfish and the winner is envied. This has'nt to be so, because engaging in the market is very good for the group. In the contrary, in sports and politics both things don't happens in general:. the participants has a sense of participation in a almost religious activity, and the winners are admired. the losers are appreciated too. As a consequence, free market advocates, like Ayn Rand intelectualize their point of view by positivizing bare selfishness, which is an error, because not all kinds of selfishness are good overall. These simplifications are a result of the absence of a science of moral. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Adam Smith showed that enlightened self-interest, contrary to what a liberal might think, benefits all. The buyer gains goods, the seller gains capital. Society is eventually enriched as well. Man would never have survived with such all-enriching market trading. Ayn Rand went overboard on the self-interest aspect, advocating selfishness and self-esteem as goals to strive for. I don't think that greed and egotism enhance life, though. On the other hand, Rand's conservative economics was top rate. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:23:23 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, ?ecomes a part of our moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these activities of acting for the good of the group. This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the tribe. In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund evolutionary as well as moral sense. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their
Re: Re: Hating the rich
Hi Bruno Marchal No, the rich only exist in the upper classes. And only the upper classes in all societies. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:59:49 Subject: Re: Hating the rich On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:45, Roger Clough wrote: Hating the rich is the new racism. No, as rich exists in all classes, and in all societies. Hating the rich is either the very old jealousy, or sometimes the natural hate of bandits when the rich have become rich through lies and stealing, or when they use their fortune to get richer by dishonest means (like with prohibition, whose benefits in mostly reinjected in corrupting government to continue prohibition). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, cannabis is moral when used to treat illneses. But not moral (not health-enhancing) in all situations. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 06:03:20 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. OK. Again, this makes cannabis moral, as some (sick if you want) people come back through work thanks to it. usually people with parkinson, cancers, depression, (Cannabis cures more than 2000 diseases, and improves the condition of much more sickness and debilitating conditions). That was the point. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. OK. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: A little greed is good
Roger: Again totally agree. But what people do with the results of this little greed? They do things for others: Their familly for example. In the most extreme selfish cases, most engage in a frenetic behaviours aimed at having descendence, even at the risk of dying. In the deep selfishness and altruism are concepts that the greeks called doxa, labels that describe a particular moment in life, but they are not serious categories. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Competition incites a desire to win (incentive) ,which is very healthy (ie good), at least to a degree. This is contrary to liberal thought, which holds that if we are all equal, there should be no winners or losers. For a little greed is what causes people to buy stocks, so a little greed is good. Greed is necessary due to the fear of taking such a risk. And to sell when things look too risky. Economics is in fact a psychological science. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-31, 05:53:23 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is evolution moral ? Totally in agreement. The problem is that the market has not good cognitive/moral support in human psichology, because it is very recent. For one side, men acting in markets feels themselves as selfish and the winner is envied. This has′nt to be so, because engaging in the market is very good for the group. In the contrary, in sports and politics both things don′t happens in general:. the participants has a sense of participation in a almost religious activity, and the winners are admired. the losers are appreciated too. As a consequence, free market advocates, like Ayn Rand intelectualize their point of view by positivizing bare selfishness, which is an error, because not all kinds of selfishness are good overall. These simplifications are a result of the absence of a science of moral. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Adam Smith showed that enlightened self-interest, contrary to what a liberal might think, benefits all. The buyer gains goods, the seller gains capital. Society is eventually enriched as well. Man would never have survived with such all-enriching market trading. Ayn Rand went overboard on the self-interest aspect, advocating selfishness and self-esteem as goals to strive for. I don't think that greed and egotism enhance life, though. On the other hand, Rand's conservative economics was top rate. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-31, 05:23:23 *Subject:* Re: Is evolution moral ? Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, 燽ecomes a part of our moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these activities of acting for the good of the group. This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the tribe. In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund evolutionary as well as moral sense. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person too. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. Why should this be the case in a comp universe? I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events. Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. ? How does the programming get in the program? Why does anything need to leave Platonia? OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again, this beg the question: why do you think anything has even leave Platonia? Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some angle/pov). By Seen from inside you evoke a Non-Platonia. Why does Platonia need a Physics view? Why should that possibility even present itself in a Platonic universe? How does encoding come to be a possibility Because it exists provably once you assume addition and multiplication, already assumed by all scientists. If I begin with numbers and then add and multiply them together to get other numbers, where does the decoding come in? At what point do they suddenly turn into letters and colors and shapes and people? Why would they do that from an arithmetic perspective? We are not tempted to do this in a computer. We don't think 'maybe this program will run faster if we play it a happy song through tiny speakers in the microprocessor'. Even plants have been shown to benefit from being interacted with positively, but have computations shown any such thing? Has any computer program shown any non-programmatic environmental awareness at all? and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal language of arithmetic truth). ? Why should it be useful? Are babies useful? Are the ring of Saturn useful? No.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ? The causal nature of all observable brains components. (empirical evidence) What about the biological nature of all observable brain components? Much more compelling since it is a change in the biological status of the brain as a whole living organ which marks the difference between life and death, not the presence or absence of logic circuits. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M49PjD4y4QwJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind
Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz's Idealism (LI) differs from dual-aspect monism (DAM) in that while both have corresponding domains of brain and mind, as I understand it, DAM is an overlay of brain and mind. But LI feautures mind in Ideal space in the form of monads, each of which is like a homunculus, so that the Leibniz mind functionally includes the whole human-- heart, mind, soul, and body- as a whole. Thus intellect and feeling and body are not separated by barriers, but can act wholistically. The textbook example is that in LI mind can (although indirectly) influence body and body similarly the mind, with no logical problems such as arose from Descartes' dualism of mind and body. Dual aspect monism, as did descartes, simply ignores the subvstance dualism of mind and body as irrelevant to the progress of neuroscience. This issue of cartesiabn dualism is what caused L to formulate his monadic metaphysics. The monadic structure and the homunculus substructure create an entirely different picture of how mind operates and what it can do (nonlocality, clairvoyance, partial and individual clarity of communion with other minds and God, how intellect can cause dominion of one monad over another, the governmebnt of the universe and mind by God, etc. for example) And what self is, and how it participates in perception and action. Pratt and the other theorists afre completely unawafre of this fact that the universe is subjective. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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: 2012-08-30, 18:12:16 Subject: Re: CTMU On 8/30/2012 2:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I? reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, which present a theory of everything which includes the mind: http://www.ctmu.net/ Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at least it is interesting. Hi Alberto, Oh my! ...SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism... Sound familiar? Nice to see that many others are independently discovering the same idea. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical implication of their arguments. We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less implies all are paid the same regardless of skill, no? We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges implies? Most people simply don't try to explain their ideologies to themselves or others, whether libertarian, republican, progressive or whatever, they are simply not curious to know. It's only the logical implication of their arguments if your logic is that there must be some reason why they are wrong to begin with. Paying teaches more (than they are paid now http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary-data.html) and useless businessmen less (than they are paid now http://current.com/green/89118297_fortune-500-ceos-relative-to-the-average-wage-in-the-united-states.htm) has nothing to do with all people or skill. It has only to do with executives making more and more money without contributing positively to anything outside of their own interests. Not imprisoning people for no reason implies nothing other than it is a terrible idea to allow people to make imprisoning people a for-profit enterprise. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/WP4beotR9rIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy. Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, that is anomie. What does where I live have to do with anything? Are you saying that only people who want to see the US paved over and sold to WalMart are real Americans? When I say that people I have known are anarchists I mean that they have anarchic sympathies - not that they advocate a permanent realization of total anarchy. Craig Quentin Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/**stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
While computers are causal, life is not causal.
Hi Craig Weinberg While computers are causal, perception is not causal. Nothing that living things do is causal. They have an uncaused first or governing cause called the self. Thus life does not have to be causal and isn't. Monads operate in such a fashion. They are not causal except if that is desired or needed. Huge difference. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 08:12:21 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ? The causal nature of all observable brains components. (empirical evidence) What about the biological nature of all observable brain components? Much more compelling since it is a change in the biological status of the brain as a whole living organ which marks the difference between life and death, not the presence or absence of logic circuits. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M49PjD4y4QwJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political and economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy. Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, that is anomie. What does where I live have to do with anything? Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding libertarian. Quentin Are you saying that only people who want to see the US paved over and sold to WalMart are real Americans? When I say that people I have known are anarchists I mean that they have anarchic sympathies - not that they advocate a permanent realization of total anarchy. Craig Quentin Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/**st**ephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/** msg/everything-list/-/-**We2MSfPkrkJhttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ . To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
At this moment of knowledge there is something that I thing everybody will agree: 1) the basic laws may be the same for computers and for minds, but in practical terms, the quantitative differences in well designed organization of the brain makes the mind qualitatively different from computers. They are not autonomous and probably will not be for a long time. We will not see it. 2) We feel ourselves as unique and qualitatively different from computers. At least in the non-professional moments where we are not being reflecting about it. 3) the reality that we perceive is created by the activity of the brain, the mind. So we can not ascertain the true nature of the external reality, neither talk properly about existence or non-existence in absolute terms, that is, in the external reality. 4) Any reasoning start in a set of unproven beliefs, Wathever they are. Depending on the beliefs our actions are different. Are you robots? I can't know up to now. I believe it is not. But I believe that´s all. I believe, you believe everyone believe. To realize that we believe in many unproven things is the first step in the self knowledge and in the respect of others, because not only we don´t know but probably we can´t ever know, but we need beliefs to take decissions, that is, to live. 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person too. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. Why should this be the case in a comp universe? I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events. Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. ? How does the programming get in the program? Why does anything need to leave Platonia? OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never
Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind
On 8/31/2012 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz's Idealism (LI) differs from dual-aspect monism (DAM) in that while both have corresponding domains of brain and mind, as I understand it, DAM is an overlay of brain and mind. Hi Roger, LI is commesurate with DAM, IMHO. The distinction tht I draw is that the DAM that I am considering does not hide the details of interaction between monads. LI puts all of the explanation into a God given Pre-Established Harmony, what I am considering does not as it seeks to explicitly show an explanation of the interactions between minds (as bisimulations). The PEH of LI and Pratt's DAM's residuation via bisimulation become identical in the ultimate limit. But LI feautures mind in Ideal space in the form of monads, each of which is like a homunculus, so that the Leibniz mind functionally includes the whole human-- heart, mind, soul, and body- as a whole. Thus intellect and feeling and body are not separated by barriers, but can act wholistically. The textbook example is that in LI mind can (although indirectly) influence body and body similarly the mind, with no logical problems such as arose from Descartes' dualism of mind and body. Dual aspect monism, as did descartes, simply ignores the subvstance dualism of mind and body as irrelevant to the progress of neuroscience. DAM defines substance as a set of almost exactendomorphisms between monads, nothing more. This issue of cartesiabn dualism is what caused L to formulate his monadic metaphysics. The monadic structure and the homunculus substructure create an entirely different picture of how mind operates and what it can do (nonlocality, clairvoyance, partial and individual clarity of communion with other minds and God, how intellect can cause dominion of one monad over another, the governmebnt of the universe and mind by God, etc. for example) Sure! We see evidence of how this might be explained in quantum pseudo-telepathy. And what self is, and how it participates in perception and action. Pratt and the other theorists afre completely unawafre of this fact that the universe is subjective. You might wish to not be so sure, but that is your choice to make. :-) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-30, 18:12:16 *Subject:* Re: CTMU On 8/30/2012 2:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I磎 reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, which present a theory of everything which includes the mind: http://www.ctmu.net/ Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at least it is interesting. Hi Alberto, Oh my! ...SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism... Sound familiar? Nice to see that many others are independently discovering the same idea. -- Onward! Stephen -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:17:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies, which seem to be alive but are not actually so. The problem is that you cannot know that. Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal in your attribution of machine sense. Oh? may be Hitler knew in his bones that Jewish were a problem. You have weird argument. I'm not the one arguing that we must accept the unacceptable because we can't prove it isn't true. With sense, we don't need to prove what we already know. We can disprove things we think we know, but we can't disprove ourselves or thinking that we know. We can sense that words are not going to evolve by themselves in a book. We can sense that a computer sitting in a box is not going to start writing screenplays by itself. To argue these things can only be naive ambition or sophistry. In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something conscious, as that can generate suffering. It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other real people burn alive. I don't see why saving a machine from fire would prevents me to save children and woman first, as I feel closer to them. But then if I can, after, save a machine, why not. You are the one talking like if you knew that machines are forever zombies/puppets. I am giving you a what if scenario, that it isn't necessarily harmless to give non-living machines the benefit of the doubt. In my scenario there is only time to save one or the other, and since the machine is programmed to authentically yell for help, the fireman saves the machine while the family suffocates to death in the basement. They would have been found first had they not been distracted by the machine. There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking very much like humans. An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people who might believe that such machine is alive. He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that they have no problem with such question. As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital brain transplant). When will machine get the right to vote? When will the machine demand the right to vote? ? In the year 4024. Perhaps. Or in the year 4024. I don't care. It is not relevant for the issue. With the comp theory, some machines, us, have already the right to vote. Then we can worry about it then. When the Lutherans will baptize machines? When will they demand to be baptized? When Lutherans will listen to them, and become sensible to their delicate souls. Lutherans have email addresses. The internet works both ways... Etc. Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect for you. Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you are selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah. In the comp theory we are machines, so all this already happened. You just reiterate your non-comp assumption, presenting it as a truth, but in science we never do that. The theory that non-comp is an assumption is your assumption. When dealing with consciousness, we don't have to justify our own non-comp experience to a comp conditionality within that experience. Who would we justify it to? Craig Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-08-29, 11:19:59 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it′s functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/31/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical implication of their arguments. We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less implies all are paid the same regardless of skill, no? We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges implies? Most people simply don't try to explain their ideologies to themselves or others, whether libertarian, republican, progressive or whatever, they are simply not curious to know. It's only the logical implication of their arguments if your logic is that there must be some reason why they are wrong to begin with. Paying teaches more (than they are paid now http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary-data.html) and useless businessmen less (than they are paid now http://current.com/green/89118297_fortune-500-ceos-relative-to-the-average-wage-in-the-united-states.htm) has nothing to do with all people or skill. It has only to do with executives making more and more money without contributing positively to anything outside of their own interests. Not imprisoning people for no reason implies nothing other than it is a terrible idea to allow people to make imprisoning people a for-profit enterprise. Craig ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even possible? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Non-causal evolution and the innate intelligence of life.
Hi William R. Buckley IMHO, stemming from the absence of self from materialistic philosophy, the materialistic view of life is essentially causal, similar to the billiard ball example. This is nonsense. Life is not causal and is not deterministic any more than Congress is causal. Life is more accurately described as an infinite set of representative governments, (monads), each with a local representative and a constitution it is expected to obey. And plans and desires for the future. So IMHO evolution is not random, it is self-guided and goal-directed. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: William R. Buckley Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 16:27:53 Subject: RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:57:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Progressivism is another word for Utopianism. Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked, or worked for long. Has Regressivism and Dystopianism fared much better? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VYEIpZZfmq8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:50 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political and economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy. Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, that is anomie. What does where I live have to do with anything? Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding libertarian. I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of diversity? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/QrEm2qQw4PYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
life as federations of cells with representational government and a leader on top
Hi Alberto G. Corona IMHO I think that life operates mostly according to the Schopenhauerian will to survive. There of course must be some more organized laws or contitution. Life consists of federations of cells, organized as representational governments, each cell with its own appointed leader (local self). This is completely contrary to the materialistic model, which has no government, no leaders, and so is blind and stumbling in a world of predators. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 08:30:55 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence At this moment of knowledge there is something that I thing everybody will agree: 1) the basic laws may be the same for computers and for minds, but in practical terms, the quantitative differences in well designed organization of the brain makes the mind qualitatively different from computers. They ?re not autonomous and probably will not be for a long time. We will not see it. 2) We feel ourselves as unique and qualitatively different from computers. At least in the non-professional moments where we are not being reflecting about it. 3) the reality that we perceive is created by the activity of the brain, the mind. So we can not?scertain?he true nature of the external reality, neither talk properly about existence or non-existence in absolute terms, that is, in the external reality. 4) Any reasoning start in a set of unproven beliefs, Wathever they are. Depending on the beliefs our actions are different. Are you robots? I can't know up to now. I believe it is not. But I believe that? all. I believe, you believe everyone believe. To realize that we believe in many unproven things ?s the first step in the self knowledge and in the respect of others,?ecause not only we don? know but ?robably we can? ever know, but we need beliefs to take decissions, that is, to live. 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: ? Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person too. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. Why should this be the case in a comp universe? I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events. ? ? Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi John Clark JOHN: That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What is that way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have? ROGER: Life. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 15:46:03 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ? The self is subjective and I can think of?o way that objective machine codes and silicon chips could produce that. That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What is that way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have? The self must be alive and conscious, two functions impossible to implement on silicon in binary code. Then silicon is lacking something vital that carbon and hydrogen atoms have. In other words you believe in vitalism. I don't. ? Personally I believe that life cannot be created, it simply is/was/and ever shall be, beyond spacetime ? Translated from the original bafflegab: Life does not exist in a place or at a time. And that is clearly incorrect.? So the universe and all life was produced as a thought in the mind of God If you can't explain how God did this then you really haven't explained anything at all and haven't given God very much to do, He must be infinitely bored. If you don't like the word God replace it above with supreme monad or perhaps cosmic mind. How about replacing it with a big I don't know. Not knowing is a perfectly respectable state to be in, unlike pretending to explained something when you really have not. ? John K Clark? ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Marxism and the pursuit of money, sex and power
Hi Craig Weinberg It's a non-brainer. The Marxist model of man and his government as being saintly and always thinking of the good of the whole flies in the face of reality. Here in the real world, man goes out each day in his basic search for money, sex, and power. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 08:28:11 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy. Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, that is anomie. What does where I live have to do with anything? Are you saying that only people who want to see the US paved over and sold to WalMart are real Americans? When I say that people I have known are anarchists I mean that they have anarchic sympathies - not that they advocate a permanent realization of total anarchy. Craig Quentin Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let people move to where they feel most at home. Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even possible? That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection at all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make things less horrible for more people. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Y6f3b7St7k0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Craig Weinberg Where today is Regressivism and Dystopianism ? Or maybe that was just an ironic comment. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 08:43:41 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:57:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Progressivism is another word for Utopianism. Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked, or worked for long. Has Regressivism and Dystopianism fared much better? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VYEIpZZfmq8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:50 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure upon common ownershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy. Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, that is anomie. What does where I live have to do with anything? Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding libertarian. I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of diversity? You were the one saying I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. . Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/QrEm2qQw4PYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Marxism and the pursuit of money, sex and power
On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:55:08 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It's a non-brainer. The Marxist model of man and his government as being saintly and always thinking of the good of the whole flies in the face of reality. Here in the real world, man goes out each day in his basic search for money, sex, and power. Maybe you are more familiar with Marx than I am, but my impression was that his view was not about men being saintly at all. To the contrary, it seems to be all about permanent class struggle and materialism - means of production and all that. He was all about the real world search for money, sex, and power. What Marx said about Capitalism may not have been wrong at all, but what he proposed as a solution didn't seem to be a lasting solution. It isn't often that ideas get half of the world to overthrow their leaders, so I would guess that they must have some pretty compelling reasoning to them and not Pollyanna tropes about man being saintly. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/31/2012 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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-31, 08:28:11 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy. Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, that is anomie. What does where I live have to do with anything? Are you saying that only people who want to see the US paved over and sold to WalMart are real Americans? When I say that people I have known are anarchists I mean that they have anarchic sympathies - not that they advocate a permanent realization of total anarchy. Craig Quentin Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/**stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: .
Re: Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind
Hi Stephen P. King There no doubt are similarities, but IMHO dual-aspect is conceptually headless. Guillotined. Unable to explain Cs and mind. Or if I may, God, for that matter. Hence materialists are mostlhy atheists. The absolutely critical thing missing from dual-aspect monism is government: A president, congress, supreme court, all of that good stuff. And a constitution. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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: 2012-08-31, 08:34:20 Subject: Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind On 8/31/2012 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz's Idealism (LI) differs from dual-aspect monism (DAM) in that while both have corresponding domains of brain and mind, as I understand it, DAM is an overlay of brain and mind. Hi Roger, LI is commesurate with DAM, IMHO. The distinction tht I draw is that the DAM that I am considering does not hide the details of interaction between monads. LI puts all of the explanation into a God given Pre-Established Harmony, what I am considering does not as it seeks to explicitly show an explanation of the interactions between minds (as bisimulations). The PEH of LI and Pratt's DAM's residuation via bisimulation become identical in the ultimate limit. But LI feautures mind in Ideal space in the form of monads, each of which is like a homunculus, so that the Leibniz mind functionally includes the whole human-- heart, mind, soul, and body- as a whole. Thus intellect and feeling and body are not separated by barriers, but can act wholistically. The textbook example is that in LI mind can (although indirectly) influence body and body similarly the mind, with no logical problems such as arose from Descartes' dualism of mind and body. Dual aspect monism, as did descartes, simply ignores the subvstance dualism of mind and body as irrelevant to the progress of neuroscience. DAM defines substance as a set of almost exactendomorphisms between monads, nothing more. This issue of cartesiabn dualism is what caused L to formulate his monadic metaphysics. The monadic structure and the homunculus substructure create an entirely different picture of how mind operates and what it can do (nonlocality, clairvoyance, partial and individual clarity of communion with other minds and God, how intellect can cause dominion of one monad over another, the governmebnt of the universe and mind by God, etc. for example) Sure! We see evidence of how this might be explained in quantum pseudo-telepathy. And what self is, and how it participates in perception and action. Pratt and the other theorists afre completely unawafre of this fact that the universe is subjective. You might wish to not be so sure, but that is your choice to make. :-) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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: 2012-08-30, 18:12:16 Subject: Re: CTMU On 8/30/2012 2:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I? reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, which present a theory of everything which includes the mind: http://www.ctmu.net/ Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at least it is interesting. Hi Alberto, Oh my! ...SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism... Sound familiar? Nice to see that many others are independently discovering the same idea. -- Onward! Stephen -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:57:15 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of diversity? You were the one saying I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Yes, so? What's the disconnect? I grew up in California talking to all kinds of left leaning radicals, so I know they don't discuss hopes of a 'perfect society'. I live in North Carolina now, where people don't trust nature (for good reason) but trust businessmen (for not so good reasons). Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qQBhCy7-Je8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:57:15 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of diversity? You were the one saying I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Yes, so? What's the disconnect? I grew up in California talking to all kinds of left leaning radicals, so I know they don't discuss hopes of a 'perfect society'. I live in North Carolina now, where people don't trust nature (for good reason) but trust businessmen (for not so good reasons). And my answer to that was that somehow you were not living in the right country, because *here* it's not the case... Anarchist advocates discuss that... What's the point calling yourself an anarchist if it's not even your goal... Same oxymoron as non-practicing Catholic... Quentin Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qQBhCy7-Je8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days. Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer: Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto- phage (eating themselves): http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper) And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this: http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/ I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer. Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too. Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The one found have been debunked: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs probably isn't good for them. Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is indeed quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But then when statistics are done on large human pot smokers population, not only cancers don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed. The probable explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer than the oncogen molecules. Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint with mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in those studies ? How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies representative of the cannabis smockers ? Those studies have compared also the difference between pure cannabis smoker and those who mix it with pot. In the US there are a lot of people who does not mix cannabis and tobacco. In Belgium also, and more and more as people get aware that tobacco is a hard drug (toxic and addictive). I have almost never mix them, and when I did, I have develop a strong addiction to such a mix, and quickly come back to separate them. The illegality of cannabis makes hard to explain to young people, who see their parent smoking tobacco and terrorised by cannabis, that the real drug in a joint is tobacco. I have try to prevent my nephews, but they laughed at me. Now they are grown up, and understand. Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does it affect the result ? Yes, but it is already quite different. They don't get addicted to MJ. Only to tobacco. Prohibition is bad, not because cannabis could cure cancer, it's bad because it destroy live for stupid reasons. It is bad for many reasons. Jefferson said: If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. Thomas Jefferson And the founders of US were strongly opposed to prohibition, which they made anticonstitutional: Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded -Abraham Lincoln Prohibition might have been one of the reason why JFK has been murdered, and it is a tool for getting power, makes huge benefices and control the society by non democratic means. It is a criminal Trojan horse to control the government. Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan, and then Bush, have all ordered studies on cannabis and alcohol, and their own studies have revealed that cannabis was nothing as dangerous compared to alcohol, but they have throw the studies in the trash, and then ordered new pseudo-studies to more obedient (pseudo) scientists. I agree with all of that... but as you cite tobacco as a hard drug, same thing, I'm against prohibition for alcohol and tobacco... the bad thing about prohibition is that it criminalize that behavior, it doesn't become good because it is a hard drug. I agree completely. It is just another problem with prohibition that we are misinformed on the relative danger of different substances. I guess you have seen that comic sketch by Coluche showing a completely drunk father giving a lesson in moral to his smoking pot son. As cannabis
RE: Non-causal evolution and the innate intelligence of life.
Roger: I rather think you can find many examples of causal, deterministic behavior in biological context. The behavior of ATP Synthase is a case in point. You humble opinion is true that, just an opinion. Observed behavior and good old fashioned measurements strongly suggest you are wrong. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:40 AM To: everything-list Subject: Non-causal evolution and the innate intelligence of life. Hi William R. Buckley IMHO, stemming from the absence of self from materialistic philosophy, the materialistic view of life is essentially causal, similar to the billiard ball example. This is nonsense. Life is not causal and is not deterministic any more than Congress is causal. Life is more accurately described as an infinite set of representative governments, (monads), each with a local representative and a constitution it is expected to obey. And plans and desires for the future. So IMHO evolution is not random, it is self-guided and goal-directed. Roger Clough, mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: William R. Buckley mailto:bill.buck...@gmail.com Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-08-30, 16:27:53 Subject: RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules - ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form - i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Roger Clough, On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive a bus through. LOL However, you keep ignoring my objections, only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So You object only to my working hypothesis. I just show that you are begging the question. What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ? What parts of the DNA molecules does not obey to the laws of physics (which are known to be Turing emulable)? I guess you agree that we can survive with an artificial heart, liver, blood, skin, ... Why not with an artificial brain? What is the part of the brain which disobeys to the physical laws? The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as with the computer. Humans cannot think either, with such argument, as an alien could consider them just as a bunch of molecules. Letters can't think. A thinker is needed. Letters can not add number, only a mathematician can, so a computer cannot add numbers. To repeat, code by itself can't control anything. A code can be implemented relatively to a universal code (computers) and can control partially itself, as computer science can illustrate. You are just saying than computers are stupid, without saying why. You reduce computer to some of their third person facets, but we know that they are *much* more. The code is no different than a map without a reader. The local physical universe can make that code acting on itself, and changing itself, in a non controllable or predictable way. It is not the code who does the thinking, but the activity entailed by the decoding of the code, and the decoding is done by some other universal system. Codes are like maps. Useless and passive without a reader. The local universe, or the environment is the reader, like the enzyme RNA polymerase can translate DNA in RNA, and RNA is naturally decoded into protein and enzyme by the transfert and ribosomic RNAs, with the help of proteins and enzyme already build from that very process. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence William, On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules � ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything incoherent with this, please quote me. Bruno wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form � i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because
Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. I agree. And with comp nothing physical exists per se, as some platonists and mystics often asserts. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is evolution moral ?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:16, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, cannabis is moral when used to treat illneses. But not moral (not health-enhancing) in all situations. I agree. Like mobile phones is moral when used to call an ambulance. But not moral when driving a car, as it is shown to be dangerously distracting. Few things are moral in all situations. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 06:03:20 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. OK. Again, this makes cannabis moral, as some (sick if you want) people come back through work thanks to it. usually people with parkinson, cancers, depression, (Cannabis cures more than 2000 diseases, and improves the condition of much more sickness and debilitating conditions). That was the point. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. OK. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To
Re: CTMU
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona He seems to have left out the personal universe of subjectivity. On his wikipedia page, there is this quote which I think mentions subjectivity: In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question whose mind?, the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called the Mind of God, and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human. A few years ago I sent him an e-mail inviting him to this list to discuss his ideas, but did not hear back. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-30, 14:24:30 *Subject:* CTMU I�m reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, �which present�a theory of everything which includes the mind: http://www.ctmu.net/ Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at least it is interesting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: CTMU
I believe it was around the time we last discussed CTMU on the list, but I am not sure. In any case, here is a link to the old thread: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/77bf2caefac9d23c/8cfd522aa6cda04b?lnk=gstq=Cognitive+Theoretic+Model+of+the+Universe#8cfd522aa6cda04b Jason On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona He seems to have left out the personal universe of subjectivity. On his wikipedia page, there is this quote which I think mentions subjectivity: In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question whose mind?, the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called the Mind of God, and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human. A few years ago I sent him an e-mail inviting him to this list to discuss his ideas, but did not hear back. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-30, 14:24:30 *Subject:* CTMU I�m reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, �which present�a theory of everything which includes the mind: http://www.ctmu.net/ Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at least it is interesting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person too. It can. In some universal environment, it is quite possible that bugs bunny like beings become persons. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. On our planet, but you extrapolate too much. Why should this be the case in a comp universe? Open and hard problem, but a priori, life can takes different forms. I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events. This is not inconsistent with comp, but I don't find this plausible. In fact I believe that all civilisation in our physical universe end up into a giant topological computing machinery (a quark star, whose stability depends on sophisticated error tolerant sort of quantum computation) virtualising their past and future. Carbon might be just a step in life development. We might already be virtual and living in such a star. But more deeply, we are already all in arithmetic. Bruno Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. ? How does the programming get in the program? Why does anything need to leave Platonia? OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again, this beg the question: why do you think anything has even leave Platonia? Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some angle/pov). By Seen from inside you evoke a Non-Platonia. Why does Platonia need a Physics view? Why should that possibility even present itself in a Platonic universe? How does encoding come to be a possibility Because it exists provably once you assume addition and multiplication, already assumed by all scientists. If I begin with numbers and then add and
The monadology of life
Hi Bruno Marchal BRUNO: You object only to my working hypothesis. I just show that you are begging the question. ROGER: What is your working hypothesis ? Maybe you have a paper on that I could look over. At this point I don't know what question I am begging. BRUNO: What parts of the DNA molecules does not obey to the laws of physics (which are known to be Turing emulable)? I guess you agree that we can survive with an artificial heart, liver, blood, skin, ... Why not with an artificial brain? What is the part of the brain which disobeys to the physical laws? ROGER: IMHO Modelling the brain with computer code seems highly speculative to me unless it is modelled with a logical monadic structure. The use of logic trees, which are essentually functional, replaces any (misguided in my view) attempt to model the brain physically, say as an electrical circuit. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 09:54:23 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Roger Clough, On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive a bus through. LOL However, you keep ignoring my objections, only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So You object only to my working hypothesis. I just show that you are begging the question. What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ? What parts of the DNA molecules does not obey to the laws of physics (which are known to be Turing emulable)? I guess you agree that we can survive with an artificial heart, liver, blood, skin, ... Why not with an artificial brain? What is the part of the brain which disobeys to the physical laws? The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as with the computer. Humans cannot think either, with such argument, as an alien could consider them just as a bunch of molecules. Letters can't think. A thinker is needed. Letters can not add number, only a mathematician can, so a computer cannot add numbers. To repeat, code by itself can't control anything. A code can be implemented relatively to a universal code (computers) and can control partially itself, as computer science can illustrate. You are just saying than computers are stupid, without saying why. You reduce computer to some of their third person facets, but we know that they are *much* more. The code is no different than a map without a reader. The local physical universe can make that code acting on itself, and changing itself, in a non controllable or predictable way. It is not the code who does the thinking, but the activity entailed by the decoding of the code, and the decoding is done by some other universal system. Codes are like maps. Useless and passive without a reader. The local universe, or the environment is the reader, like the enzyme RNA polymerase can translate DNA in RNA, and RNA is naturally decoded into protein and enzyme by the transfert and ribosomic RNAs, with the help of proteins and enzyme already build from that very process. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence William, On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything incoherent with this, please quote me. Bruno wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4,
Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps I am misguided, but I thought that comp was moreorless a mechanical model of brain and man activity. I obviously need to peruse your main idea . Do you have a link ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 09:56:27 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. I agree. And with comp nothing physical exists per se, as some platonists and mystics often asserts. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Re: CTMU
Hi Jason Resch Thanks. I feel a little less antagonistic. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 10:04:21 Subject: Re: CTMU On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona He seems to have left out the personal universe of subjectivity. On his wikipedia page, there is this quote which I think mentions subjectivity: In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question whose mind?, the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called the Mind of God, and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human. A few years ago I sent him an e-mail inviting him to this list to discuss his ideas, but did not hear back. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 14:24:30 Subject: CTMU I? reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, ?hich present? theory of everything which includes the mind: http://www.ctmu.net/ Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at least it is interesting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Sense is irreducible.
From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.
No software can control anything, even itself, unless something
has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to
execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.
This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing
mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.
I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the
possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding
of what i/o is.
?
How does the programming get in the program?
Like the number 67589995004 get into arithmetic. By the consequence of
addition and multiplication law. It is not obvious, but well explained
in good textbook in logic.
Why does anything need to leave Platonia?
OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but
again, this beg the question: why do you think anything has even
leave Platonia? Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some
angle/pov).
By Seen from inside you evoke a Non-Platonia.
Why does Platonia need a Physics view? Why should that possibility
even present itself in a Platonic universe?
It does not. It does as a collective hallucination by numbers. But you
need computer science to get that point clearly.
How does encoding come to be a possibility
Because it exists provably once you assume addition and
multiplication, already assumed by all scientists.
If I begin with numbers and then add and multiply them together to
get other numbers, where does the decoding come in?
It is long to explain, but the statement that the machine number Nu,
in some enumeration of the partial computable function, stops on the
number X is equivalent with the following arithmetical and polynomial
relations:
phi_Nu(X) converges (the machine Nu stops when applied to the input X)
iff
BEGIN:
Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y
ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2
Qu = B^(5^60)
La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5
Th + 2Z = B^5
L = U + TTh
E = Y + MTh
N = Q^16
R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)
+ [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)
P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2
(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2
4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2
K = R + 1 + HP - H
A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2
C = 2R + 1 Ph
D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga
D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1
F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1
(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1
END
Xa^3 is an abbreviation of Xa * Xa * Xa, so you can see arithmetic
naturally describes, complex computer science relations, in the
language {s, 0, +, *}. See Matiyasevic book for more, and notably
explicit arithmetical form for decoding and encoding.
Those relation are true or false independently of me, and you, and
define a universal dovetaling in pure arithmetic.
At what point do they suddenly turn into letters and colors and
shapes and people?
When Nu represent the brain of a human being, and X an input of
similar to the imput you get in the eyes when looking something
colored. (I use comp, of course: I answer in the theory I am working
in).
Why would they do that from an arithmetic perspective?
Why do 3 divides 9?
We are not tempted to do this in a computer. We don't think 'maybe
this program will run faster if we play it a happy song through tiny
speakers in the microprocessor'. Even plants have been shown to
benefit from being interacted with positively, but have computations
shown any such thing? Has any computer program shown any non-
programmatic environmental awareness at all?
This is not reasoning. You can't compare today machine, with humans
who have a very long history. But such history is in arithmetic
(trivially).
and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal language
of arithmetic truth).
?
Why should it be useful?
Are babies useful? Are the ring of Saturn useful?
No. They aren't. That's my point. Those things would never arise
from number crunching alone.
Indeed. But the hallucination of babies and Saturn rings do.
Numbers begat only more numbers. If you apply numbers to forms, then
you get interesting forms. If you apply interesting colors, sounds,
etc. But numbers will never discover these things. We discover them.
Real things discover numbers, not the other way around.
We are relative numbers. You just asserts that we are not. We agree to
disagree on that possibility.
Comp doesn't account for realism, only a toy model of realism which
is then passed off as genuine
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote: At this moment of knowledge there is something that I thing everybody will agree: 1) the basic laws may be the same for computers and for minds, but in practical terms, the quantitative differences in well designed organization of the brain makes the mind qualitatively different from computers. They are not autonomous and probably will not be for a long time. We will not see it. 2) We feel ourselves as unique and qualitatively different from computers. At least in the non-professional moments where we are not being reflecting about it. 3) the reality that we perceive is created by the activity of the brain, the mind. So we can not ascertain the true nature of the external reality, neither talk properly about existence or non- existence in absolute terms, that is, in the external reality. Thats the old dream argument. It is also the UDA step six, in modern digital rendering. A key point indeed. 4) Any reasoning start in a set of unproven beliefs, Wathever they are. Depending on the beliefs our actions are different. Are you robots? I can't know up to now. I believe it is not. But I believe that´s all. I believe, you believe everyone believe. To realize that we believe in many unproven things is the first step in the self knowledge and in the respect of others, because not only we don´t know but probably we can´t ever know, but we need beliefs to take decissions, that is, to live. That is why I insist that people gives their axioms, or theories. Then we can do science instead of asserting public truth, which is, in my opinion, bad philosophy, as indeed we cannot know any public truth. Is there a moon? That is an hypothesis. Nobody has given a proof of the absolute existence of the moon. Bruno 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person too. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. Why should this be the case in a comp universe? I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events. Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:17:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies, which seem to be alive but are not actually so. The problem is that you cannot know that. Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal in your attribution of machine sense. Oh? may be Hitler knew in his bones that Jewish were a problem. You have weird argument. I'm not the one arguing that we must accept the unacceptable because we can't prove it isn't true. With sense, we don't need to prove what we already know. We can disprove things we think we know, but we can't disprove ourselves or thinking that we know. We can sense that words are not going to evolve by themselves in a book. We can sense that a computer sitting in a box is not going to start writing screenplays by itself. To argue these things can only be naive ambition or sophistry. You can sense your own consciousness. But you talk like if you could sense once and for all the absence of consciousness for all machine. In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something conscious, as that can generate suffering. It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other real people burn alive. I don't see why saving a machine from fire would prevents me to save children and woman first, as I feel closer to them. But then if I can, after, save a machine, why not. You are the one talking like if you knew that machines are forever zombies/puppets. I am giving you a what if scenario, that it isn't necessarily harmless to give non-living machines the benefit of the doubt. In my scenario there is only time to save one or the other, and since the machine is programmed to authentically yell for help, the fireman saves the machine while the family suffocates to death in the basement. They would have been found first had they not been distracted by the machine. Bad things happens. I heard recently that a firefighter died by trying to save a dog. There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking very much like humans. An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people who might believe that such machine is alive. He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that they have no problem with such question. As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital brain transplant). When will machine get the right to vote? When will the machine demand the right to vote? ? In the year 4024. Perhaps. Or in the year 4024. I don't care. It is not relevant for the issue. With the comp theory, some machines, us, have already the right to vote. Then we can worry about it then. I have never criticize the point that today's machine don't think. We discuss theory, not engineering. When the Lutherans will baptize machines? When will they demand to be baptized? When Lutherans will listen to them, and become sensible to their delicate souls. Lutherans have email addresses. The internet works both ways... Etc. Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect for you. Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you are selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah. In the comp theory we are machines, so all this already happened. You just reiterate your non-comp assumption, presenting it as a truth, but in science we never do that. The theory that non-comp is an assumption is your assumption. When dealing with consciousness, we don't have to justify our own non- comp experience to a comp conditionality within that experience. Who would we justify it to? Researchers. That is those who seek possible fundamental truth, not those who affirm to have find it. Bruno Craig Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 15:22, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: Is not this quote of yours plain enough as evidence that you said something incoherent: “It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell.” I never wrote that. I think Roger wrote it. Bruno wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:28 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence William, On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything incoherent with this, please quote me. Bruno wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On biological causation
Hi William R. Buckley On one level, you're right, but I think biological causation is different from what we might think of in a physical or chemical sense. For example, semen can unite with an egg to form (cause) a fetus, but that would be quite different from the collision of two billiard balls. In the semen/egg case, some (biological) intelligence is involved, whereas only physical momentum is transferred between the two billiard balls. IMHO biological causation involves mind, which has no first cause in the Aristotelian sense. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: William R. Buckley Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 09:50:03 Subject: RE: Non-causal evolution and the innate intelligence of life. Roger: I rather think you can find many examples of causal, deterministic behavior in biological context. The behavior of ATP Synthase is a case in point. You humble opinion is true that, just an opinion. Observed behavior and good old fashioned measurements strongly suggest you are wrong. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:40 AM To: everything-list Subject: Non-causal evolution and the innate intelligence of life. Hi William R. Buckley IMHO, stemming from the absence of self from materialistic philosophy, the materialistic view of life is essentially causal, similar to the billiard ball example. This is nonsense. Life is not causal and is not deterministic any more than Congress is causal. Life is more accurately described as an infinite set of representative governments, (monads), each with a local representative and a constitution it is expected to obey. And plans and desires for the future. So IMHO evolution is not random, it is self-guided and goal-directed. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: William R. Buckley Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 16:27:53 Subject: RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 15:24, William R. Buckley wrote: Roger and Bruno: No part of the DNA molecule controls life. DNA is simply a description, a representation of information, a piece of paper upon which letters are written. It is the letter order that controls life. Nothing more. No problem with this. You might read my paper Amoeba, Planaria and dreaming machines(*) which explains the math of self-reproduction, and self-regeneration and thus embrogenesis. (and also of dreaming, like Bateson, I think biology and psychology are different instantiation of the same self-referential phenomenon. I think all this is coherent with your views as exposed here and in your paper. You asked me to explain Kleene's theorem. I will do that asap, but it is hard to explain technics on a mailing list. I will try to say two words on it someday, though. Bruno (*) Marchal B., 1992, Amoeba, Planaria, and Dreaming Machines, in Bourgine Varela (Eds), Artificial Life, towards a practice of autonomous systems, ECAL 91, MIT press. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:44 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Bruno Marchal Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive a bus through. However, you keep ignoring my objections, only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ? The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as with the computer. Letters can't think. A thinker is needed. To repeat, code by itself can't control anything. The code is no different than a map without a reader. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence William, On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or controlling function within the corresponding context. The genome is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome. Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes of molecules � ATP generation for one is rather well understood these days. Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to context issues. I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything incoherent with this, please quote me. Bruno wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form � i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this
Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Bruno Marchal Are you saying that comp creates and controls all by means of some kind of code in some Pythagorean realm, where all is numbers ? That everything is computable ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 10:27:35 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person too. It can. In some universal environment, it is quite possible that bugs bunny like beings become persons. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. On our planet, but you extrapolate too much. Why should this be the case in a comp universe? Open and hard problem, but a priori, life can takes different forms. I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events. This is not inconsistent with comp, but I don't find this plausible. In fact I believe that all civilisation in our physical universe end up into a giant topological computing machinery (a quark star, whose stability depends on sophisticated error tolerant sort of quantum computation) virtualising their past and future. Carbon might be just a step in life development. We might already be virtual and living in such a star. But more deeply, we are already all in arithmetic. Bruno Sense is irreducible. From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank. I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. ? How does the programming get in the program? Why does anything need to leave Platonia? OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again, this beg the
Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Roger Clough, Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps I am misguided, but I thought that comp was moreorless a mechanical model of brain and man activity. Not really. Comp is the hypothesis that there is a level of description of my brain or body such that I can be emulated by a computer simulating my brain (or body) at that level of description. Comp is neutral on the level. It might be a very low level like if we needed to simulate the entire solar system at the level of string theory, or very high, like if we were the result of the information processing done by the neurons in our skull. Comp entails that NO machine can ever be sure about its substitution level (the level where we survive through the digital emulation), and so comp cannot be used normatively: if we are machine, we cannot know which machine we are, and thus saying yes to the digitalist doctor for an artificial brain demands some act of faith. It is a theological sort of belief in reincarnation, even if technological. It is theotechnology, if you want. No one can imposes this to some other. Then I show that comp leads to Plato, and refute Aristotle metaphysics. There are no ontological physical universe. the physical universe emerges from a gluing property of machines or number's dream. The physical universe appears to be a tiny facet of reality. The proof is constructive and show how to derive physics from machine's dream theory (itself belonging to arithmetic); but of course this leads to open problems in arithmetic. What has been solved so far explains already most of the quantum aspect of reality, qualitatively and quantitatively. The approach explains also why from the number's points of view, quanta and qualia differentiate. The work is mainly a complete translation of a part of the 'mind-body problem' into a 'belief in matter problem' in pure arithmetic. I obviously need to peruse your main idea . Do you have a link ? The more simple to read in english is probably the sane04: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html best, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 09:56:27 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. I agree. And with comp nothing physical exists per se, as some platonists and mystics often asserts. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Yes, but bashing nicotine is also easy. Everybody that surfs internet, especially posting too much is nicotine freak ;) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=internet%20addiction%20chrna4 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 17:12, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Are you saying that comp creates and controls all by means of some kind of code in some Pythagorean realm, where all is numbers ? That everything is computable ? Comp is a theory. It does nothing. You grasp it, or you don't, and this independently of being true or false, like any theory. The theory assume that the brain is emulable by a computer, and is natural as it is hard to find something not emulable by a computer without using special mathematical tools. So ontologically, eventually the natural numbers can be an acceptable universal realm, and in that sense, yes, all is numbers + the laws of addition and multiplication. But this does not entails that everything is computable, on the contrary, it is shown that the computable is rather exceptional, and even consciousness and matter appears to be non computable, because they arise from a phenomenon (first person indeterminacy) related to the fact that no machine can be know which machine she is, and still less which computations supports her, and those are infinitely distributed in arithmetic. In Leibniz, brute matter indeed exists just as in a text on solid state physics. And you can stub your toe on a rock. Like in comp. yet they do not exist ontologically. They exist epistemologically. Physics beomes literally a branch of numbers's biology or psychology or theology. But this is referred to by L as the phenomenal world. So it is like in comp. To L, the rock also exists in the world of ideas as a monad. Monads as ideas are more basic than matter, which according to L, can be infinitely divided. So to L, the ideal is real. Like in comp. I personally would use the uncertainty principle to rank ideas as real as opposed to particles. That might be quick. Anyway, with comp QM is NOT part of the hypothesis. It should be part of the conclusion, and that is what makes comp testable. Leibniz refers to our everyday world as containing well-established phenomena. I agree. I have no problem with Leibniz, I only find him hard to read. But I have studied the Platonists and the neoplatonists, (and Chinese and Indians thinkers) and comp asks for some backtracking to them. I tend to consider Plotinus as the most modern guy on the planet, and I appreciate the neoplatonists as they do not oppose the mystical inquiry to rationalism. They remain cold in hot water! Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 10:27:35 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form � i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and multiplication, ... My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles they are. Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine. To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English. It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ... By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person too. It can. In some universal environment, it is quite possible that bugs bunny like beings become persons. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water
Re: Re: Marxism and the pursuit of money, sex and power
On Friday, August 31, 2012 9:14:20 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Right, but that's what communism asks you to do in effect. Marx never used the word saintly or giving your life to the Cause, but that emphasis on others rather than self no doubt prompted Ayn Rand's (she was russian, presumably a victim of oppressive communist rule) reactionary paean to the virtues of self-esteen and selfishness. Ayn Rand was the daughter of the owner of a successful pharmacy who had his business confiscated by the Bolsheviks when she was 12. It doesn't take too much to see how that would traumatize anyone, especially someone in her social position (not to stereotype her as a Jewish Russian Princess, but given her sense of pride later in life, I would not guess that she would be any less so as privileged teenager in cosmopolitan St. Petersberg). I think her animus toward communism was more personally driven by the loss of her expected life at the hands of low class peasants than anything else. Of course, I could be projecting - I don't know much about Rand except for reading Atlas Shrugged. I liked the idea of John Galt and all of that. I didn't realize at the time the implications or what was behind her views. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: Hi Craig Weinberg 8/31/2012 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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-31, 09:03:05 *Subject:* Re: Marxism and the pursuit of money, sex and power On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:55:08 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It's a non-brainer. The Marxist model of man and his government as being saintly and always thinking of the good of the whole flies in the face of reality. Here in the real world, man goes out each day in his basic search for money, sex, and power. Maybe you are more familiar with Marx than I am, but my impression was that his view was not about men being saintly at all. To the contrary, it seems to be all about permanent class struggle and materialism - means of production and all that. He was all about the real world search for money, sex, and power. What Marx said about Capitalism may not have been wrong at all, but what he proposed as a solution didn't seem to be a lasting solution. It isn't often that ideas get half of the world to overthrow their leaders, so I would guess that they must have some pretty compelling reasoning to them and not Pollyanna tropes about man being saintly. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 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 *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-08-31, 08:28:11 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary. Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven? Craig Hi Craig, Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: what vital ingredient does a neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have? ROGER: Life. Yes life, I was afraid you might say that. It may interest you to know that the Latin word for Life is vita, it's where the word vitalism comes from. And by the way, even creepy creationists don't think neurotransmitter chemicals are alive. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/31/2012 8:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let people move to where they feel most at home. Hi Craig, The places that have fences around them to keep people in stand out as the failures. Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even possible? That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection at all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make things less horrible for more people. Sure, I can speak only to what I have seen for myself. Most policies that I see so-called progressives proposing are not satisfying your definition. Thus my remarks. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind
On 8/31/2012 9:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There no doubt are similarities, but IMHO dual-aspect is conceptually headless. Guillotined. Unable to explain Cs and mind. Or if I may, God, for that matter. Hence materialists are mostlhy atheists. The absolutely critical thing missing from dual-aspect monism is government: A president, congress, supreme court, all of that good stuff. And a constitution. Hi Roger, Umm, I was considering the definitions of philosophical ontologies, nothing else... -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: God is necessary because He runs the whole show. And when in His omniscience God asks Himself How is it that I can run the whole show? How is it that I am able to do anything that I want to do? How do my powers work?, what answer does He come up with? The religious have become adept at dodging that question with bafflegab but the fact remains that if you can't provide a substantive answer then the God theory explains absolutely positively nothing. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 31 Aug 2012, at 17:52, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Yes, but bashing nicotine is also easy. Everybody that surfs internet, especially posting too much is nicotine freak ;) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=internet%20addiction%20chrna4 Interesting. If we don't fight prohibition, one day internet will be illegal, or strongly controlled, as many government try already. Video games can also be very addictive, and Korea seems to have more game addiction medical help center than for drug consumption. Note that salvia and iboga seem to be the only known drug not messing with the serotonergic and dopaminergic neurotransmissions, unlike alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, TV, magic mushrooms, sex, MDMA, ..., and now the net. This is confirmed by the fact that salvia is not addictive at all, and actually, like iboga, seems to cure addiction, habituation and compulsive behavior. They are really drug antidotes. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Marxism and the pursuit of money, sex and power
The L-Curve: A Graph of the US Income Distribution http://www.lcurve.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:22:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/31/2012 8:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let people move to where they feel most at home. Hi Craig, The places that have fences around them to keep people in stand out as the failures. If you have a high population and low ownership of resources, you don't need fences to fail. You can find examples of success and failure regardless of the economic system. Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is socialist and China is Communist. Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even possible? That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection at all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make things less horrible for more people. Sure, I can speak only to what I have seen for myself. Most policies that I see so-called progressives proposing are not satisfying your definition. Thus my remarks. My view is that the Democrats tend to tell you they are going to do good things and then not do them while the Republicans will do bad things and tell you it is actually good. I don't think either party is progressive. If Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders could agree on a candidate, I would vote for them. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/nMoBc8R2xwIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is evolution moral ?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Is Evolution Moral? I think Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very differently, I would have made intense physical pain a physical impossibility, but unfortunately that Yahweh punk got the job and not me. The minimum requirement for calling oneself religious is a belief in God, and if there is anybody who calls himself religious who doesn't think that God is benevolent I have yet to meet him. And yet I maintain that a benevolent God is totally inconsistent with Evolution, which can produce grand and beautiful things but only after eons of monstrous cruelty. the moral is that which enhances life I think that's true, and if so then morality is subject to Evolution just like anything else that enhances life. And if its made by something as messy as Evolution then you wouldn't expect a moral system to be entirely free of self contradictions. Consider the moral thought experiments devised by Judith Jarvis Thomson: 1) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track saving the lives of the five. Unfortunately there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch and kill one man or do nothing and just watch five people die? 2) As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you, your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track killing him to save five people. Should you push the fat man over the edge or do nothing? Almost everybody feels in their gut that the second scenario is much more questionable morally than the first, I do too, and yet really it's the same thing and the outcome is identical. The feeling that the second scenario is more evil than the first seems to hold true across all cultures; they even made slight variations of it involving canoes and crocodiles for south American Indians in Amazonia and they felt that #2 was more evil too. So there must be some code of behavior built into our DNA and it really shouldn't be a surprise that it's not 100% consistent; Evolution would have gained little survival value perfecting it to that extent, it works good enough at producing group cohesion as it is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Hating the rich
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:46:40 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hating the rich is the new racism. Is it? http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830,0,3323996.story Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2YtUpBZTti4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What is thinking ?
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote: On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote: Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define time. In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)) ... is enough, notably to named the steps of execution of the UD (UD*), or of the programs execution we can see in UD*, or equivalently in a tiny subset of arithmetical truth. Are you saying time-order corresponds to the order of execution of steps in the UD? The first person time-order is given by the relative measure on the computations. ?? But what is that measure. Are you saying 1p experiences on exist in an implicit order when all the uncountably infinite UD computations are done? But this relies on all computations, and they need a third person time-order, and I am just saying that this one is reducible by the natural number order. I don't see how that can be consistent with your idea that our sequence of conscious experiences corresponds to a closest continuation of a our present state. Our present state is supposedly visited infinitely many times by the UD. Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the physical time too, as the whole physics emerges from the first person plural indeterminacy. But to define computation, we need a thrid person time, and for this one, as the UD illustrates, we need only the natural number canonical order: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... That's sort of a no-person time; a time not experienced or accessible to anyone. I think of third person time as something like proper time in GR or entropy increase - the sort of time that people can reach intersubjective agreement about, what you measure on a clock. I don't know which Brian was referring to, but I doubt it was the no-person time of the UD. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote: On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work. It's personal. It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not work and to be supported by others. That's the point of making a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical (consistent with social values, 3p). OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you). By OK with you I mean you are free to use personal definition orthogonal to the use of the majority. By orthogonal I mean ... Hmm... But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle. Do you see no distinction between standards by which you judge yourself and those which by which society may judge you? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: While computers are causal, life is not causal.
On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:12 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg While computers are causal, perception is not causal. Nothing that living things do is causal. They have an uncaused first or governing cause called the self. Thus life does not have to be causal and isn't. I don't see it as being so cut and dried. What about a virus? Is that a living thing? How about a crystal? I see more of a step-like spectrum from physical to chemical to organic to biological to zoological and anthropological. Living things seem like they do some causal things to me? They seek food when their bodies run low. They grow hair when and where their genes cause it to grow. I agree that perception is not causal, although the elaboration of perception from one individual or species to another can be causal. When we say life, I think that we just mean phenomena which we can relate to and identify with - and that capacity to identify or disidentify is there for a reason. I think though that the reason is not absolute but relative. All living organisms could disappear from the cosmos forever and the universe would still be full of memory, pattern, and experience...just on scales of time and space that are very unfamiliar to us. Monads operate in such a fashion. They are not causal except if that is desired or needed. Huge difference. Did Leibniz think that non-living things were not composed of monads? Here is my look at Monadology if you are interested: http://multisenserealism.com/2012/07/14/notes-on-monadology/ Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/31/2012 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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-31, 08:12:21 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ? The causal nature of all observable brains components. (empirical evidence) What about the biological nature of all observable brain components? Much more compelling since it is a change in the biological status of the brain as a whole living organ which marks the difference between life and death, not the presence or absence of logic circuits. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M49PjD4y4QwJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rypjXKjozuYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is socialist and China is Communist. But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means of production. Sweden's economy is regulated capitalism plus lots of social services (which conservatives in the U.S. call socialist). China has a mixed economy with government owned enterprises and privately owned ones. It is not communist as Marx envisioned, it is only communist in that is what the ruling party calls itself and it allows no opposition parties. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Fwd: The biological advantages of being awestruck
Original Message The biological advantages of being awestruck: http://vimeo.com/46264514 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Friday, August 31, 2012 2:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is socialist and China is Communist. But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means of production. Sweden's economy is regulated capitalism plus lots of social services (which conservatives in the U.S. call socialist). China has a mixed economy with government owned enterprises and privately owned ones. It is not communist as Marx envisioned, it is only communist in that is what the ruling party calls itself and it allows no opposition parties. Why isn't it deregulated socialism plus lots of entrepreneurial support? My point is that these labels are not especially relevant and that the underlying conditions of population and ownership of resources are what matter, not the supposed ideology or system of bookkeeping. If you look at the skyline of any major city, you can't see any difference between the more capitalist, socialist, democratic, theocratic, etc political systems. It can work well or terribly in any mode - even monarchy. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1tuWzGuWFxkJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:53:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg You're on the right track, but everybody from Plato on says that the Platonic world is timeless, eternal. And nonextended or spaceless (nonlocal). Leibniz's world of monads satisfies these requirements. But there is more, there is the Supreme Monad, which experiences all. And IS the All. Hegel and Spinoza have the Totality, Kabbala has Ein Sof, There's the Tao, Jung's collective unconscious, there's Om, Brahman, Logos, Urgrund, Urbild, first potency, ground of being, the Absolute, synthetic a prori, etc. I call it the Totality-Singularity or just Everythingness. It's what there is when we aren't existing as a spatiotemporally partitioned subset. It is by definition nonlocal and a-temporal as there is nothing to constrain its access to all experiences. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/31/2012 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 javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-30, 13:53:09 *Subject:* Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Craig On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:54:32 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: What is thinking ? Parmenides thought that thinking and being are one, which IMHO I agree with. Thoughts come to us from the Platonic realm, which I personally, perhaps mistakenly, associate with what would be Penrose's incomputable realm. Here is a brief discussion of technological or machine thinking vs lived experience. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/00201740310002398#tabModule IMHO Because computers cannot have lived experience, they cannot think. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy Volume 46http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sinq20?open=46#vol_46, Issue 3 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/sinq20/46/3, 2003 Thinking and Being: Heidegger and Wittgenstein on Machination and Lived-Experience Version of record first published: 05 Nov 2010 Heidegger's treatment of 'machination' in the Beitr锟�e zur Philosophie begins the critique of technological thinking that would centrally characterize his later work. Unlike later discussions of technology, the critique of machination in Beitr锟�e connects its arising to the predominance of 'lived-experience' ( Erlebnis ) as the concealed basis for the possibility of a pre-delineated, rule-based metaphysical understanding of the world. In this essay I explore this connection. The unity of machination and lived-experience becomes intelligible when both are traced to their common root in the primordial Greek attitude of techne , originally a basic attitude of wondering knowledge of nature. But with this common root revealed, the basic connection between machination and lived-experience also emerges as an important development of one of the deepest guiding thoughts of the Western philosophical tradition: the Parmenidean assertion of the sameness of being and thinking. In the Beitr锟�e 's analysis of machination and lived-experience, Heidegger hopes to discover a way of thinking that avoids the Western tradition's constant basic assumption of self-identity, an assumption which culminates in the modern picture of the autonomous, self-identical subject aggressively set over against a pre-delineated world of objects in a relationship of mutual confrontation. In the final section, I investigate an important and illuminating parallel to Heidegger's result: the consideration of the relationship between experience and technological ways of thinking that forms the basis of the late Wittgenstein's famous rule-following considerations. everything-list Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
Re: Good is that which enhances life
Richard: with all my agreement so far, would you continue: 2. Have you ever been pregnant? if not, do not talk into the topic! 3. Are you on Medicare? if you are on the 'aristocratic' -- (so called Cadillac) - governmental health care system, --- don't talk into it! 4. Are you on Social Security? - if you are enjoying some - (governmental) extra pension, don't talk into Social Sec. 5. Have you ever been a working (struggling) single mom? - if not, don't pretend to talk about their problems. 6. Have you ever been unemployed, seeking a job ? if not, do not talk into the problem. and so on and on. JM On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 *Subject:* Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to
Re: Good is that which enhances life
John, 1. Yes 2. No 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. No 6. Yes and so on. Richard On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Richard: with all my agreement so far, would you continue: 2. Have you ever been pregnant? if not, do not talk into the topic! 3. Are you on Medicare? if you are on the 'aristocratic' -- (so called Cadillac) - governmental health care system, --- don't talk into it! 4. Are you on Social Security? - if you are enjoying some - (governmental) extra pension, don't talk into Social Sec. 5. Have you ever been a working (struggling) single mom? - if not, don't pretend to talk about their problems. 6. Have you ever been unemployed, seeking a job ? if not, do not talk into the problem. and so on and on. JM On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: Roger, Have you ever smoked pot. If not you are not qualified to comment Richard On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus I think that the good is that which enhances life. So IMHO smoking pot would not be good. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 10:46:52 *Subject:* Re: The logic of agendas Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. By what should be. This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism, in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will
