RE: Universe from Pixels?

Bruno ~ I believe Quantum loop gravity depends on a fine grain structure existing in spacetime. These results would seem to falsify it therefore. Spacetime on the very small scale appears to be smoothly continuous. I would like to see these results reconfirmed though; not casting doubt on the exper

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

Hi Richard , I do not use religion in a pejorative sense. Actually I am a Hindu. (At least I was until I got kicked out of the Muktananda Ashram) And so I am religiously in agreement with physical reality being an illusion. Interesting. However, I am also a physicist and my string co

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:01:25 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Leibniz's platonism and the false problem of reductionism in mind and quantum theory

On 29 Oct 2013, at 12:09, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Having just learned a thing or two from Bruno, it strikes me that Leibniz monads are Aristotelian rather than Platonic just like my string cosmology. Richard Exactly. Leibniz, in some text (but not in all) makes a come back to the

Re: Step 3

On 30 October 2013 19:03, Jason Resch wrote: > > My point was only that the traditional notions of personal identity: > saying this person is that one particular continuation of that biological > organism, or of that one brain, do not work. They fail in cases of fusion, > fission, duplication, r

Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:51 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/29/2013 4:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > But this is how I see the concept of Übermensch. The idea got horribly > distorted by subsequent political events. The ideal of Übermensch is a > human that transcends the illusion and becomes aware

Re: Step 3

On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:31 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 October 2013 19:03, Jason Resch wrote: My point was only that the traditional notions of personal identity: saying this person is that one particular continuation of that biological organism, or of that one brain, do not work. They fail

Re: Dialetheism

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 27 Oct 2013, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > there is great value in a way to access experience which pretends that it >> is not pretending. This is quanta and arithmetic truth. >> > > I would say that is different. It is just

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many Wor

Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com > [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:32 AM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re:

Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain

On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/29/2013 9:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Depressingly, until the middle of the XX century there was no general consensus that all human beings are people with equal rights. That's a very recent idea, indeed. It's so recent that it's well into

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:35:57 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: > > Richard: Here are a few quotes from > http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate > that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and > cosmology is really all about whether or no

Re: Step 3

On 29 Oct 2013, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Chris, Perhaps it is simpler to think about first person indeterminacy like this (it requires some familiaraity with programming, but I will try to elaborate those details): Imagine there is a conscious

Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:05:47 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:51 AM, meekerdb > > wrote: > > On 10/29/2013 4:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > But this is how I see the concept of Übermensch. The idea got horribly > > distorted by subsequent political

RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article

-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Chris de

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

For me your philosophy is un-understandable poetry. Now that I finally have some understanding of the import of Bruno's comp perhaps I should try to understand your concept of sense. Richard On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:35:57 AM

Re: For John Clark

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> Bruno asked me "Do you think that you die in a self-duplication >> experience?" and I said that depends on what the meaning of "you" is. Bruno >> responded with "We have already agree that "you" concerns the guy(s) who >> will remember ha

Re: Step 3

On 29 Oct 2013, at 21:41, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Chris, Perhaps it is simpler to think about first person indeterminacy like this (it requires some familiaraity with programming, but I w

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:52:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:01:25 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Tuesday, October

Re: Step 3

On 29 Oct 2013, at 22:12, LizR wrote: I suggested doing this on FOAR (I used HAL from 2001). It simply makes it easier to visualise if you forget about biological creatures. Assuming comp, an AI is exactly equivalent to a human person, so anything you can do to an AI could be done (in theo

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/30 John Clark > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> Bruno asked me "Do you think that you die in a self-duplication >>> experience?" and I said that depends on what the meaning of "you" is. Bruno >>> responded with "We have already agree that "you" concerns the

Re: Step 3

On 30 Oct 2013, at 03:18, chris peck wrote: Hi Jason How can uncertainty arise in a subject who believes he knows all the relevent facts? How does a prediction of 50/50 not contravene the axiom that I survive anihilation and duplication into two (any number of) branches? All the bea

Re: Step 3

On 30 Oct 2013, at 05:25, chris peck wrote: Hi Jason (again) in your response to Brent: >>Personally I believe no theory that aims to attach persons to one psychological or physiological continuity can be successful. ok, but in Bruno's step 3 it is taken as axiomatic that you survive in

Re: Step 3

On 30 Oct 2013, at 06:35, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:12 PM, LizR wrote: I suggested doing this on FOAR (I used HAL from 2001). It simply makes it easier to visualise if you forget about biological creatures. Assuming comp, an AI is exactly equivalent to a human perso

Re: Step 3

On 30 Oct 2013, at 10:31, LizR wrote: On 30 October 2013 19:03, Jason Resch wrote: My point was only that the traditional notions of personal identity: saying this person is that one particular continuation of that biological organism, or of that one brain, do not work. They fail in ca

Re: Step 3

On 10/29/2013 11:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:25 PM, chris peck > wrote: Hi Jason (again) in your response to Brent: / >>Personally I believe no theory that aims to attach persons to one psychological or physiol

Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain

On 10/30/2013 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:51 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/29/2013 4:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: But this is how I see the concept of Übermensch. The idea got horribly distorted by subsequent political events. The ideal of Übermensch is a human that tran

Re: Step 3

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/29/2013 11:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:25 PM, chris peck wrote: > >> Hi Jason (again) >> >> in your response to Brent: >> >> * >> >>Personally I believe no theory that aims to attach persons to one >> ps

Fwd: Is Earth F**ked?

Original Message --- On the subject of completely fucked up : In December 2012, a pink-haired complex systems researcher named Brad Werner made his way through the throng of 24,000 earth and space scientists at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, held

Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain

Brent and Craig, Politics are typically a trigger for endless off-topic discussions. I respect your opinions, but maybe we should avoid this stuff. Telmo. On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/30/2013 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:51 AM, meeker

Re: Step 3

On 10/30/2013 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: and that personal survival from moment to moment is exactly the same as survival during a duplication experiment. In comp, at least, a person is a series of discrete states, a "Capsule theory" of memory and identity I find that theory lacking. It i

Re: Is Earth F**ked?

Or to be exact, is humanity fucked? Or at least the vast majority of it - I can imagine some of us surviving even a catastrophic ecological collapse. But leaving aside the horrible thought that we might go 99% extinct, is there any chance for the survivors, at least, having a long term future? I s

Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain

Ok, by me, although for an off-topic subject, it is interesting how frequently it comes up. On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:50:46 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Brent and Craig, > > Politics are typically a trigger for endless off-topic discussions. I > respect your opinions, but maybe we

Re: Step 3

On 31 October 2013 10:50, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/30/2013 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > and that personal survival from moment to moment is exactly the same as > survival during a duplication experiment. In comp, at least, a person is a > series of discrete states, a "Capsule theory" of mem

Re: Is Earth F**ked?

On 10/30/2013 2:54 PM, LizR wrote: Or to be exact, is humanity fucked? Or at least the vast majority of it - I can imagine some of us surviving even a catastrophic ecological collapse. But leaving aside the horrible thought that we might go 99% extinct, is there any chance for the survivors, at

Re: Step 3

On 10/30/2013 3:24 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 October 2013 10:50, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/30/2013 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: and that personal survival from moment to moment is exactly the same as survival during a duplication experiment. In comp, at lea

Re: Is Earth F**ked?

On 31 October 2013 11:40, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/30/2013 2:54 PM, LizR wrote: > >> Or to be exact, is humanity fucked? Or at least the vast majority of it - >> I can imagine some of us surviving even a catastrophic ecological collapse. >> But leaving aside the horrible thought that we might go 9

Re: Is Earth F**ked?

On 10/30/2013 4:01 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 October 2013 11:40, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/30/2013 2:54 PM, LizR wrote: Or to be exact, is humanity fucked? Or at least the vast majority of it - I can imagine some of us surviving even a catastrophic ec

Re: Is Earth F**ked?

On 31 October 2013 12:13, meekerdb wrote: > Of course if there are 7 billion people it's more likely there will be > survivors than if there are only few million. But an asteroid strike could > easily be big enough to wipe-out all terrestrial life bigger than > bacteria. We have the concept now

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: > We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious... The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. This we know. We don't know if consciousness of a str

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than nothing" etc. On 31 October 2013 12:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious... > > The brain is chemical reactions and consc

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:35:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious... > > The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when > these chemical reactions happen,

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: > > This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than > nothing" etc. > That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something has about the absence of everything. > > > On 31 October 2013 12

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: >> >> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than >> nothing" etc. >> > > That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something > has about

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On 10/30/2013 6:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg > wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than nothing" etc. That one is easy

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On 31 October 2013 15:19, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/30/2013 6:53 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than >>> nothing" etc.

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than >>> nothing" etc. >>> >> >> That

Re: Step 3

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:24 PM, LizR wrote: > On 31 October 2013 10:50, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 10/30/2013 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> and that personal survival from moment to moment is exactly the same as >> survival during a duplication experiment. In comp, at least, a person is a

Re: Step 3

On 10/30/2013 9:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And if you manage to define a metric it will no more prove that any two people are the same than it would prove that Moscow is the same as Washington because there's a path between them. If there is a computation which connects the pers

Re: Is Earth F**ked?

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:24 PM, LizR wrote: > On 31 October 2013 12:13, meekerdb wrote: > >> Of course if there are 7 billion people it's more likely there will be >> survivors than if there are only few million. But an asteroid strike could >> easily be big enough to wipe-out all terrestrial

Re: Step 3

On 10/30/2013 9:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:24 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 31 October 2013 10:50, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/30/2013 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: and that personal survival from moment t

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably, > but It's maybe organized in a more concise way. > > >> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you >> conscious as >> yourself?

RE: Is Earth F**ked?

Will we be around in 100 years? That is an open question. Some will point to the fact that we did not blow ourselves up during the cold war, and we didn't, but times change and the planetary resource equations have also changes, and dramatically so in some cases. During the cold war both the Soviet