Re: INDEXICAL Computationalism

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/26/2018 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 23 Feb 2018, at 20:37, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 2/23/2018 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Feb 2018, at 23:17, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 2/22/2018 1:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Feb 2018, at 00:48, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 2/18/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If consciousness is invariant for a digital transplant, it is 
not much a matter of choice.

But that's simply assuming what is to be argued.


?

It is the working hypothesis. The argument is in showing that this 
enforces Plato and refutes Aristotle. Physics becomes a branch of 
machine’s psychology or theology.





The argument must be that the doctor has done this before (maybe 
to humans, maybe to mice) and there was not detectable change in 
behavior, so it's reasonable to bet on the doctor.
The reason why you say “yes” to the doctor is private. It needs an 
act of faith because no experience at all can confirm 
Computationalism.


That's moving the goal post.  You can't convince me that if you 
knew the doctor's work had no observable affect on the behavior of 
mice if would not, for you, count as evidence in favor of 
consciousness being retained.  Nothing is ever "confirmed" with 
certainty.



My point was stronger. Even if I say yes and truly survive “100%”, 
that cannot count as a proof that I have survived integrally, The 
reason is the possibility of anosognosia.
And the point is a theorem in the computationalist metaphysics. We 
know that we would believe correctly to have survived (and thus know 
it in the Theaetetical sense), but with an intellectual doubt 
enforcing to not claim to have *necessarily*survive, keeping the 
theological act of faith mandatory. Of course, we can bet that the 
humans will forget this ...


Maybe stronger, but still a very weak point.  Everyone on this list 
thinks that intelligent behavior is an indicator of consciousness;


Yes, but not necessarily an indicator of “supervenient of 
consciousness in some real time”. If I see a movie, I can see 
intelligent behaviour, and attribute some consciousness to some 
person, but not in a real time. With mechanism, the person is always 
conscious, but its body/representation is not.






no doubt because they believe that their own consciousness is 
important in their intelligent behavior.  Sure it's possible that 
they are unrelated and it's just a coincidence or the consciousness 
is an otiose epiphenomenon.  But that doesn't mean it's not 
evidence...and pretty convincing evidence at that.  You have become 
so immersed in logic and mathematics that you seem to have forgotten 
that science doesn't find *necessary* truths and that acting on 
evidence is not an act of faith but of reason.


When you based your act on reason, you still need some faith in your 
reason and in its applicability to your local reality.


A sophistic argument worthy of a theologian.  If you didn't have "faith" 
in your reason you'd have no basis for any belief or action.  It's just 
a rhetorical trick to insert "faith".


This does not need to be mentioned in most practical application of 
science, but it becomes important when doing metaphysics or theology 
with the scientific method.















Due to some possible anosognosia, even doing the digital 
transplant experience oneself would prove nothing, even to 
yourself (despite the feeling). You can know that you have 
survived, but you cannot know for sure that you have survived 
integrally (but you can know that in the Theoretical sense, 
slightly weakened).


A doctor who claim that we survive such transplant, or that 
science has proven we can survive such transplant is automatically 
a con-man.


Not at all.  He may be going on the best available evidence.  Just 
because it's not proven in your axiomatic system doesn't mean it 
has no credence.


Of course. Computationalism just insist that in all case, it asks 
for the act of faith.


If it's based on all the evidence it ain't faith.  "Faith is 
believing what you know ain't so."...Mark Twain.



No, that is blind faith. I use faith for acting from evidence, given 
that evidence proofs nothing.


Depends on what you mean by "proof", we sentence people to prison based 
on proof of their crime.  Not all proof is mathematical.  And 
mathematical proof is only relative to the axioms.


It is close to the <>t of G, the implicit faith in our own 
consistency, which makes us inconsistent when made explicit, like with 
an axiom, postulate or proof.






Obviously, we have to do that every seconds, if we assume mechanism. 
The credence can be very high/ My point is more academical, if you 
want, no matter how I feel after the transplantation, it is never a 
“proof” that mechanism is correct, or that I have survived. Like I 
cannot prove that I am 

Disclosure Project

[agrayson2000]

http://siriusdisclosure.com/evidence/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: INDEXICAL Computationalism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Feb 2018, at 20:37, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/23/2018 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 23:17, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/22/2018 1:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2018, at 00:48, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/18/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If consciousness is invariant for a digital transplant, it is not much a 
>> matter of choice.
> But that's simply assuming what is to be argued.
 
 ?
 
 It is the working hypothesis. The argument is in showing that this 
 enforces Plato and refutes Aristotle. Physics becomes a branch of 
 machine’s psychology or theology.
 
 
 
 
> The argument must be that the doctor has done this before (maybe to 
> humans, maybe to mice) and there was not detectable change in behavior, 
> so it's reasonable to bet on the doctor.
 The reason why you say “yes” to the doctor is private. It needs an act of 
 faith because no experience at all can confirm Computationalism.
>>> 
>>> That's moving the goal post.  You can't convince me that if you knew the 
>>> doctor's work had no observable affect on the behavior of mice if would 
>>> not, for you, count as evidence in favor of consciousness being retained.  
>>> Nothing is ever "confirmed" with certainty.
>> 
>> 
>> My point was stronger. Even if I say yes and truly survive “100%”, that 
>> cannot count as a proof that I have survived integrally, The reason is the 
>> possibility of anosognosia. 
>> And the point is a theorem in the computationalist metaphysics. We know that 
>> we would believe correctly to have survived (and thus know it in the 
>> Theaetetical sense), but with an intellectual doubt enforcing to not claim 
>> to have *necessarily*survive, keeping the theological act of faith 
>> mandatory. Of course, we can bet that the humans will forget this ...
> 
> Maybe stronger, but still a very weak point.  Everyone on this list thinks 
> that intelligent behavior is an indicator of consciousness;

Yes, but not necessarily an indicator of “supervenient of consciousness in some 
real time”. If I see a movie, I can see intelligent behaviour, and attribute 
some consciousness to some person, but not in a real time. With mechanism, the 
person is always conscious, but its body/representation is not.





> no doubt because they believe that their own consciousness is important in 
> their intelligent behavior.  Sure it's possible that they are unrelated and 
> it's just a coincidence or the consciousness is an otiose epiphenomenon.  But 
> that doesn't mean it's not evidence...and pretty convincing evidence at that. 
>  You have become so immersed in logic and mathematics that you seem to have 
> forgotten that science doesn't find *necessary* truths and that acting on 
> evidence is not an act of faith but of reason.

When you based your act on reason, you still need some faith in your reason and 
in its applicability to your local reality. This does not need to be mentioned 
in most practical application of science, but it becomes important when doing 
metaphysics or theology with the scientific method. 




>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 Due to some possible anosognosia, even doing the digital transplant 
 experience oneself would prove nothing, even to yourself (despite the 
 feeling). You can know that you have survived, but you cannot know for 
 sure that you have survived integrally (but you can know that in the 
 Theoretical sense, slightly weakened).
 
 A doctor who claim that we survive such transplant, or that science has 
 proven we can survive such transplant is automatically a con-man.
>>> 
>>> Not at all.  He may be going on the best available evidence.  Just because 
>>> it's not proven in your axiomatic system doesn't mean it has no credence.
>> 
>> Of course. Computationalism just insist that in all case, it asks for the 
>> act of faith.
> 
> If it's based on all the evidence it ain't faith.  "Faith is believing what 
> you know ain't so."...Mark Twain.


No, that is blind faith. I use faith for acting from evidence, given that 
evidence proofs nothing. It is close to the <>t of G, the implicit faith in our 
own consistency, which makes us inconsistent when made explicit, like with an 
axiom, postulate or proof. 



> 
>> Obviously, we have to do that every seconds, if we assume mechanism. The 
>> credence can be very high/ My point is more academical, if you want, no 
>> matter how I feel after the transplantation, it is never a “proof” that 
>> mechanism is correct, or that I have survived. Like I cannot prove that I am 
>> conscious. 
> 
> You cannot prove any fact.  You can only prove that some axioms entail some 
> theorems given some rules of inference.  But you 

Re: Goedel incompleteness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Feb 2018, at 23:46, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/23/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I have developed a fuzzy version of prolog, actually based on Philippe Smets 
>> (the main creator of IRIDIA)  “transfer belief model”, to help in some 
>> search in giant protein databanks (when I was working for Monsanto (!)). 
>> With a friend we have taken some years to compile it in ADA. He told me that 
>> a subroutine we created has actually been implemented in all chips (a sort 
>> of hash-table data retrieving procedure! I am not sure if this can have 
>> value in AI, or perhaps I do think a fuzzy prolog can have value, but I am 
>> not sure if this is exploited today. At that time, I heard about a Japanese 
>> firm which built a fuzzy chip for logic programming for a “clever” cleaning 
>> machine. I believe more in neural nets, especially if it is cycling, and 
>> with ¨many¨hidden layers. You can be sure that when such machine will think, 
>> we will not understand how they do it, 
> 
> And neither will the machine.

Indeed.



> 
>> and such machine will be beyond theoretical analysis. With computers, either 
>> we massacre the semantics, and they will be efficacious, but often wrong and 
>> a bit stupid in the human way, or we will built docile slaves. It is about 
>> the same with the education of kids. We will forever remains in-between 
>> security and liberty ...
> 
> Yes, having raised four kids and now advising (to no effect) how to raise 
> grandkids and great-grandkids I sometimes reflect on how the No Free Lunch 
> theorem may apply to education.


Kids are terrible indeed. Congratulation for having kids, and kid’s kids … 
Doubly so if you can share some values with them.
The No free Lunch theorem might be applied, sometimes even literally those days 
…

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Feb 2018, at 23:15, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/23/2018 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> However though perhaps a spider may exist in a less filtered internal state 
>>> of being than a mouse, I don't see how it is more conscious. Is an amoeba 
>>> even more conscious then than a spider. Is the simplest most elementary 
>>> particle the most conscious entity of all?
>> Normally an amoeba is indeed more conscious than a spider, which is more 
>> conscious than us, but plausibly less conscious of their environment. The 
>> price of that higher consciousness is that it is of the dissociative kind of 
>> consciousness.
>> 
>> Particles are not conscious in the sense that particles have no brain at 
>> all, and actually, does not exist at all.
> 
> So your theory leads us to conclude that consciousness is maximized somewhere 
> between no neurons, even no structure at all, and the neural equipment of a 
> spider.   Perhaps a pebble?  

Pebbles? I don’t think so. A pebbles is not actually anything which exists 
ontologically, so that assuming that a pebble thinks is a bit attributing a 
mind to an illusion (the material things).

To make consciounsness manifest in the relative way, you need to be at the 
least Turing universal, so you need some amount of neurons or Turing 
equivalent. The empty theory is NOT conscious. Nor is the thermostat, in any 
sense sensible with mechanism. Amazingly, your laptop is, but in a dissociative 
state. It is important given that its consciousness is the same as yours, but 
much undifferentiated.



> 
> I find it disingenous that you talk of testing your theory by comparing with 
> experience and quantum mechanics and finding it agrees over a tiny part of 
> their domain and this is confirmation. 

It is not a tiny part, it is the core skeleton, and it is highly non trivial. 
Most of my real opponents bets that all the relevant modalities would collapse, 
making physics purely geographical, a bit like Smullyan sais explicitly in his 
book “Forever Undecided”.

I was expecting finding quick-kly the many-world aspect, but I got the formal 
logic of physics, not a long way from a theorem à-la Gleason. 

OK, it is not much, but it is the only theory which explain why there is a non 
trivial physics, and which explains consciousness. 



> But when your theory leads to an absurdity

Which one?



> you obfuscate the fact with mysticism and redefining consciousness as an 
> illusion…

This is disingenuous!  I am not sure why you say this. Since the start I insist 
that consciousness cannot be an illusion. You need to be conscious to be 
illusionned. Matter is an illusion. Not consciousness. (And by Matter I mean 
always Aristotle primary matter of the matter of the metaphysicians. Not the 
matter studied by the physicists, which on the contrary serves the verification 
procedure.




> although in other contexts you note it is the only thing we can be sure of.

I say this in all contexts. If you find a quote of me saying that consciousness 
is an illusion, I bought you a bottle of whisky!

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Feb 2018, at 00:36, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 11:12:32 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Feb 2018, at 17:15, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> The MH spacetime in the case of the Kerr metric does permit an observer in 
>> principle to witness an infinite stream of bits or qubits up to the inner 
>> horizon r_- that is continuous with I^+ in the exterior spacetime. This 
>> means due to spacetime effects one could witness the diagonalization in a 
>> Zeno machine context. For instance a switch that is switched one in one 
>> second, off the next half second, on in the next quarter second and so forth 
>> will presumably have a final state. However, what does prevent this in a 
>> fundamental way is that a switch flipped in this chirped frequency will 
>> diverge in energy and become a black hole before returning a result. We 
>> could of course avoid the black hole with a ball that bounces, but of course 
>> one does not get an infinite number of little bounces at the end. Because of 
>> this an observer could in principle witness a universal Turing machine 
>> emulate all possible Turing machines. Thinking according to TMs is for me a 
>> bit simpler, but this does illustrate one could get around Godel.
> 
> I am not sure the observer should not be itself implemented in the MH, and 
> its first person perspective might not allow him to see the TM emulating all 
> TMs. But even if it did, that would only be the implementation of a halting 
> algorithm, which overcome the Turing limitations, but not the Gödel one: you 
> will only get the sigma_truth completely, but “time” itself is such an 
> oracle, and again, I am not sure if such an observer does not, from its 
> personal point of view, have to live an infinite life to assess the result. 
> But I have looked at the MH paper a long time ago, so take this with caution. 
> Note that Gödel incompleteness cannot be escaped by *any* means, even 
> infinite means, unless you directly refer to the semantics, which is not an 
> effective process.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> However, quantum mechanics as I illustrate seems to throw a spanner in the 
>> works. This breaks the continuity between r_- and I_+. It also means the 
>> inner horizon is built from quantum fields from the exterior in ways that 
>> generates a mass inflation singularity. This is interesting to ponder with 
>> respect to the connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
> 
> Yes, very interesting. 
> 
> 
> 
>> In fact I think the two are simply aspects of the same thing. This means in 
>> some way the incompleteness theorems of Godel are involved with the 
>> foundations of physics.
> 
> Very glad to hear that. 
> Note that with Mechanism, incompleteness is responsible for the whole set of 
> accessible phenomenologies including the physical one, so yes, it is hoped 
> that physicists will someday study incompleteness (in a more serious (valid) 
> way than Penrose which has detracted many physicists from Gödel, and many 
> logicians from physics). 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> In effect quantum mechanics enters into the picture of MH spacetimes to 
> prevent physics from providing a loop hole out of Godel's theorem.

That seems very interesting. If you have a link on this. It would help the 
derivation of the quantum from arithmetic, and possibly for the derivation of 
the GR too. It reminds me Bohr's use of GR to solve an attempt by Einstein to 
refute the energy/time “uncertainty” relation (I am sure you know it). It seems 
to me to make QM implying GR, at some level, but I have not been able to do 
effectively.

Bruno




> 
> LC 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Disclosure Project

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 3:22:01 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://siriusdisclosure.com/evidence/


Two kooky things; claim of cold fusion, and Youtube ban of 2001 National 
Press Club Event. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Disclosure Project

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 3:22:01 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://siriusdisclosure.com/evidence/


Two kooky things; cold fusion and YouTube ban of 2001 press conference. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Feb 2018, at 00:36, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 11:12:32 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23 Feb 2018, at 17:15, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> The MH spacetime in the case of the Kerr metric does permit an observer 
>> in principle to witness an infinite stream of bits or qubits up to the 
>> inner horizon r_- that is continuous with I^+ in the exterior spacetime. 
>> This means due to spacetime effects one could witness the diagonalization 
>> in a Zeno machine context. For instance a switch that is switched one in 
>> one second, off the next half second, on in the next quarter second and so 
>> forth will presumably have a final state. However, what does prevent this 
>> in a fundamental way is that a switch flipped in this chirped frequency 
>> will diverge in energy and become a black hole before returning a result. 
>> We could of course avoid the black hole with a ball that bounces, but of 
>> course one does not get an infinite number of little bounces at the end. 
>> Because of this an observer could in principle witness a universal Turing 
>> machine emulate all possible Turing machines. Thinking according to TMs is 
>> for me a bit simpler, but this does illustrate one could get around Godel.
>>
>>
>> I am not sure the observer should not be itself implemented in the MH, 
>> and its first person perspective might not allow him to see the TM 
>> emulating all TMs. But even if it did, that would only be the 
>> implementation of a halting algorithm, which overcome the Turing 
>> limitations, but not the Gödel one: you will only get the sigma_truth 
>> completely, but “time” itself is such an oracle, and again, I am not sure 
>> if such an observer does not, from its personal point of view, have to live 
>> an infinite life to assess the result. But I have looked at the MH paper a 
>> long time ago, so take this with caution. Note that Gödel incompleteness 
>> cannot be escaped by *any* means, even infinite means, unless you directly 
>> refer to the semantics, which is not an effective process.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> However, quantum mechanics as I illustrate seems to throw a spanner in 
>> the works. This breaks the continuity between r_- and I_+. It also means 
>> the inner horizon is built from quantum fields from the exterior in ways 
>> that generates a mass inflation singularity. This is interesting to ponder 
>> with respect to the connection between quantum mechanics and general 
>> relativity.
>>
>>
>> Yes, very interesting. 
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact I think the two are simply aspects of the same thing. This means 
>> in some way the incompleteness theorems of Godel are involved with the 
>> foundations of physics.
>>
>>
>> Very glad to hear that. 
>> Note that with Mechanism, incompleteness is responsible for the whole set 
>> of accessible phenomenologies including the physical one, so yes, it is 
>> hoped that physicists will someday study incompleteness (in a more serious 
>> (valid) way than Penrose which has detracted many physicists from Gödel, 
>> and many logicians from physics). 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> In effect quantum mechanics enters into the picture of MH spacetimes to 
> prevent physics from providing a loop hole out of Godel's theorem.
>
>
> That seems very interesting. If you have a link on this. It would help the 
> derivation of the quantum from arithmetic, and possibly for the derivation 
> of the GR too. It reminds me Bohr's use of GR to solve an attempt by 
> Einstein to refute the energy/time “uncertainty” relation (I am sure you 
> know it). It seems to me to make QM implying GR, at some level, but I have 
> not been able to do effectively.
>
> Bruno
>

 I am the link. This is a bit of a sideline project. I have had in mind to 
derive QM and GR from the theory of diophatine equations.

LC

>
>
>
> LC 
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.