date:20120930



On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/29/2012 7:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here  
and now. The QM indeterminacy is made into a particular first  
person comp indeterminacy.


Where is the here and now if not a localization in a  
physical world.


Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world  
without assuming a *primitive* physical world.


Physical objects are exactly the kind of thing that are defined  
ostensively.


They are referred too ostensively. They are not defined in that way,  
at least not in the theory. Only in practice, they referred too  
ostensively. In our context, we search a theory, not a practice.


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: Epiphenomenalism



On 30 Sep 2012, at 01:54, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Sep 2012, at 12:21, Stephen P. King wrote:


HEY!

It's nice to see other people noticing the same thing that I  
have been complaining about. Thank you, Brent!



On 9/29/2012 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I *can* know the exact position of an electron in my brain,  
even if this will make me totally ignorant on its impulsions. I  
can know its exact impulsion too, even if this will make me  
totally ignorant of its position.


But that doesn't imply that the electron does not have a  
definite position and momentum; only that you cannot prepare an  
ensemble in which both values are sharp.


OK. This Fourier relation between complementary observable is  
quite mysterious in the comp theory.


How about that! Bruno, you might wish to read up a little on  
Pontryagin duality, of which the Fourier relation is an example.  
It is a relation between spaces. How do you get spaces in your non- 
theory, Bruno?


?

The result is that we have to explain geometry, analysis and  
physics from numbers. It is constructive as it shows the unique  
method which keeps distinct and relate the different views, and the  
quanta/qualia differences. But the result is a problem, indeed: a  
problem in intensional arithmetic.

Hi Bruno,

What ever means they are constructed, it is still a space that  
is the end result. A space is simply a space is a set with some  
added structure.


A set is an epistemic construct, in the arithmetical TOE.

















In both case, the electron participate two different coherent  
computation leading to my computational state.
Of course this is just in principle, as in continuous  
classical QM, we need to use distributions, and reasonable  
Fourier transforms.


But at the fundamental level of the UD 'the electron' has some  
definite representation in each of infinitely many  
computations.  The uncertainty comes from the many different  
computations.  Right?


Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here  
and now. The QM indeterminacy is made into a particular first  
person comp indeterminacy.


Where is the here and now if not a localization in a  
physical world.


Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world  
without assuming a *primitive* physical world.


I am OK with the idea that a physical world is that which can be  
described by a Boolean Algebra in a sharable way. The trick is the  
sharing. It order to share something there must be multiple  
entities that can each participate in some way and that those  
entities are in some way distinguishable from each other.



Like they obviously are in arithmetic.









This is defined as centering by Quine's Propositional Objects as  
discussed in Chalmers book, pg. 60-61...











The state is well defined, as your state belongs to a  
computation. It is not well defined below your substitution  
level, but this is only due to your ignorance on which  
computations you belong.


Right.  What I would generally refer to as 'my state' is a  
classical state (since I don't experience Everett's many worlds).


But I still don't understand, Consciousness will make your  
brain, at the level below the substitution level, having some  
well defined state, with an electron, for example, described  
with some precise position. Without consciousness there is no  
material brain at all. 


How does consciousness make a brain or make matter?  I  
thought your theory was that both at made by computations.  My  
intuition is that, within your theory of comp, consciousness  
implies consciousness of matter and matter is a construct of  
consciousness;


That's what I was saying.


Really!?


?




I believe that it was Brent that wrote: My intuition is that,  
within your theory of comp, consciousness implies consciousness of  
matter and matter is a construct of consciousness;  and you wrote  
that you agreed.


OK.













so you can't have one without the other.


Exactly. Not sure if we disagree on something here.


What exactly are you agreeing about, Bruno? No consciousness  
without matter? Ah, you think that numbers have intrinsic  
properties... OK.


Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible  
realities.


It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it.


That would be ultrafinist, to say the least. But even this cannot  
work, even in a world with only 16 objects, in the case it can have  
self aware creature, by the MGA, in case comp can make sense in such  
structure (which of course it does not).





I can come up with several other counter-examples in terms of finite  
field, but that is overly belaboring a point.


Yes, and comp has to assume 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... to provide sense to  
the term computations.






This is needed to define in an intrinsic way the non intrinsic,  
intensional

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
 example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
 eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of salt and
 iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is no reason
 why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the reality
 that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic biologically
 active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there couldn't be
 inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily invested in
 the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or impossible, but
 that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take that rather
 odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important data.
 Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in the air
 shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide.

I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an
advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a
gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such
organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by
weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no
organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation
consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the
evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is
the antithesis of life. Why, when there is an obvious and better
explanation consistent with Occam's Razor?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 OK, so you put in the brain implant, switch it in and out of circuit
 without telling the subject which is which, and ask them how they
 feel. They can't tell any difference and you can't tell any difference
 in behaviour. To make the experiment better there would be two
 researchers, one doing the switching and another analysing the
 subject's behaviour. With this double blind procedure the implant is
 pronounced successful. Is that good enough?


 No, I think that you have to have each hemisphere of the brain offloaded
 completely to the device one at a time, then both, and then back, and have
 the subject live that way at each stage for several months before finally
 being restored back to their original brain. This would be repeated several
 times with double blind placebo offloadings. The subject would then decide
 for themselves if it was safe for them to say yes to the doctor.

One would hope the scientists try it with a more limited part of the
brain before moving to an entire hemisphere.

 I entertain this only theoretically though, as I think in reality it would
 fail completely, with every case resulting right away in unconsciousness,
 amnesia, coma, death, trauma, and psychosis and the whole project ultimately
 being abandoned for good.

I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as
good as normal hearing. But technology keeps getting better while the
human body stays more or less static, so at some point technology will
match and then exceed it. At the very least, there is no theoretical
reason why it should not.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Fwd: Sokal-type hoax on two theological conferences

2012-09-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Hehe.

Fine.

However, the concrete abstract seems very promising for a theologian.
It is clear that Boudry know the concepts that he manage. His abstract
is a piece of cake, it is a I solved the Teologian problem of our
time! . It is not pure gibberish.

Remenber that the Sokal affair was around a complete article, not an
abstract. I know that a great number of hoax papers are submitted and
accepted in scientific press.Many of them are not for joking purposes,
but for people that want relevance, fame and money. This hasn´t to
undermine hard sciences. ( Not in the case of modern cultural and
gender studies that are pure indoctrination )

In my particular case, I worked in European I+D projects where
subsidies depended on the imagination, the length of the documents and
the appropriate use of buzzwords.

Alberto.

2012/9/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
John Clark at least will appreciate this. :-)

Original Message
To: Skeptic skep...@lists.johnshopkins.edu

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/a-sokal-style-hoax-by-an-anti-religious-philosopher-2/
-
But today I’m presenting something else: a real Sokal-style hoax that
Boudry has perpetrated. He informed me yesterday that he had submitted
a fake, post-modernish and Sophisticated-Theological™ abstract to two
theology conferences:

By the way, I thought you might find this funny. I wrote a spoof
abstract full of theological gibberish (Sokal-style) and submitted it
to two theology conferences, both of which accepted it right away. It
got into the proceedings of the Reformational Philosophy conference.
See Robert A. Maundy (an anagram of my name) on p. 22 of the program
proceedings.
-

The comments are worth reading too.

===

And there is a most excellent review/refutation of Plantinga's Where the
Conflict Really Lies by Boudry here (I notice he credits Yonatan Fishman
among others):

http://ihpst.net/newsletters/sept-oct2012.pdf

Here's a snippet:

In much of what passes as sophisticated theology these days, the term ‘God’
does no explanatory
work at all, but functions as an intellectual vanishing point, a bundle of
all explanatory loose ends.
God is simply equated with the uncaused cause, the ground of all being, as
that-which-does-notrequire-
further-explanation.

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.

--
Alberto.

Einstein and space

Hi Stephen P. King 

With his relativity principle, Einstein showed us that  
there is no such thing as space, because all distances
are relational, relative, not absolute. 

The Michelson朚orley experiment also proved that 
there is no ether, there is absolutely nothing
there in what we call space. Photons simply 
jump across space, their so-called waves are
simply mathematical constructions. 

Leibniz similarly said, in his own way, that
neither space nor time are substances.
They do not exist. They do exist, however,
when they join to become (extended) substances 
appearing as spacetime.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/30/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-29, 19:54:56 
Subject: Re: Epiphenomenalism 


On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 



On 29 Sep 2012, at 12:21, Stephen P. King wrote: 


HEY! 

It's nice to see other people noticing the same thing that I have been 
complaining about. Thank you, Brent! 


On 9/29/2012 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


I *can* know the exact position of an electron in my brain, even if this will 
make me totally ignorant on its impulsions. I can know its exact impulsion too, 
even if this will make me totally ignorant of its position.  


But that doesn't imply that the electron does not have a definite position and 
momentum; only that you cannot prepare an ensemble in which both values are 
sharp.  


OK. This Fourier relation between complementary observable is quite mysterious 
in the comp theory.  


How about that! Bruno, you might wish to read up a little on Pontryagin 
duality, of which the Fourier relation is an example. It is a relation between 
spaces. How do you get spaces in your non-theory, Bruno? 



? 


The result is that we have to explain geometry, analysis and physics from 
numbers. It is constructive as it shows the unique method which keeps distinct 
and relate the different views, and the quanta/qualia differences. But the 
result is a problem, indeed: a problem in intensional arithmetic. 
Hi Bruno, 

What ever means they are constructed, it is still a space that is the end 
result. A space is simply a space is a set with some added structure. 















In both case, the electron participate two different coherent computation 
leading to my computational state.  
Of course this is just in principle, as in continuous classical QM, we need 
to use distributions, and reasonable Fourier transforms.  


But at the fundamental level of the UD 'the electron' has some definite 
representation in each of infinitely many computations.  The uncertainty comes 
from the many different computations.  Right?  


Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here and now. The QM 
indeterminacy is made into a particular first person comp indeterminacy.  


Where is the here and now if not a localization in a physical world.  


Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world without 
assuming a *primitive* physical world. 

I am OK with the idea that a physical world is that which can be described 
by a Boolean Algebra in a sharable way. The trick is the sharing. It order 
to share something there must be multiple entities that can each participate in 
some way and that those entities are in some way distinguishable from each 
other. 








This is defined as centering by Quine's Propositional Objects as discussed in 
Chalmers book, pg. 60-61... 










The state is well defined, as your state belongs to a computation. It is not 
well defined below your substitution level, but this is only due to your 
ignorance on which computations you belong.  


Right.  What I would generally refer to as 'my state' is a classical state 
(since I don't experience Everett's many worlds).  

But I still don't understand, Consciousness will make your brain, at the level 
below the substitution level, having some well defined state, with an electron, 
for example, described with some precise position. Without consciousness there 
is no material brain at all.   

How does consciousness make a brain or make matter?  I thought your theory 
was that both at made by computations.  My intuition is that, within your 
theory of comp, consciousness implies consciousness of matter and matter is a 
construct of consciousness;  


That's what I was saying.  


Really!? 



? 





I believe that it was Brent that wrote: My intuition is that, within your 
theory of comp, consciousness implies consciousness of matter and matter is a 
construct of consciousness;  and you wrote that you agreed. 









so you can't have one without the other.  


Exactly. Not sure if we disagree on something here.  


What exactly are you agreeing about, Bruno? No consciousness without 
matter? Ah, you think that numbers have intrinsic properties... OK.  



Indeed. I think 17 is

Re: Fwd: Sokal-type hoax on two theological conferences

2012-09-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona

I don´t know if you know the postmodernist generator. It´s a program
that generate postmodernist papers, Sokal style:

Each time it is executed, a now paper is generated:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

2012/9/30 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
Hehe.

Fine.

In my particular case, I worked in European I+D projects where
subsidies depended on the imagination, the length of the documents and
the appropriate use of buzzwords.

Alberto.

2012/9/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
John Clark at least will appreciate this. :-)

Original Message
To: Skeptic skep...@lists.johnshopkins.edu

The comments are worth reading too.

===

And there is a most excellent review/refutation of Plantinga's Where the
Conflict Really Lies by Boudry here (I notice he credits Yonatan Fishman
among others):

http://ihpst.net/newsletters/sept-oct2012.pdf

Here's a snippet:

Brent

--
Alberto.

Re: Re: Epiphenomenalism

Hi Stephen P. King  

Leibniz would not go along with epiphenomena because
the matter that materialists base their beliefs in
is not real, so it can't emanate consciousness.

Leibniz did not believe in matter in the same way that
atheists today do not believe in God.  

And with good reason. Leibniz contended that not only matter,
but spacetime itself (or any extended substance) could not 
real because extended substances are infinitely divisible. 

Personally. I substitute Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
as the basis for this view because the fundamental particles
are supposedly divisible. Or one might substitute
Einstein's principle of the relativity of spacetime.
The uncertainties left with us by Heisenberg on
the small scale and Einstein on the large scale
ought to cause materialists to base their beliefs on
something less elusive than matter.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/30/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-29, 19:54:56 
Subject: Re: Epiphenomenalism 


On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 



On 29 Sep 2012, at 12:21, Stephen P. King wrote: 


HEY! 

It's nice to see other people noticing the same thing that I have been 
complaining about. Thank you, Brent! 


On 9/29/2012 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


I *can* know the exact position of an electron in my brain, even if this will 
make me totally ignorant on its impulsions. I can know its exact impulsion too, 
even if this will make me totally ignorant of its position.  


But that doesn't imply that the electron does not have a definite position and 
momentum; only that you cannot prepare an ensemble in which both values are 
sharp.  


OK. This Fourier relation between complementary observable is quite mysterious 
in the comp theory.  


How about that! Bruno, you might wish to read up a little on Pontryagin 
duality, of which the Fourier relation is an example. It is a relation between 
spaces. How do you get spaces in your non-theory, Bruno? 



? 


The result is that we have to explain geometry, analysis and physics from 
numbers. It is constructive as it shows the unique method which keeps distinct 
and relate the different views, and the quanta/qualia differences. But the 
result is a problem, indeed: a problem in intensional arithmetic. 
Hi Bruno, 

What ever means they are constructed, it is still a space that is the end 
result. A space is simply a space is a set with some added structure. 















In both case, the electron participate two different coherent computation 
leading to my computational state.  
Of course this is just in principle, as in continuous classical QM, we need 
to use distributions, and reasonable Fourier transforms.  


But at the fundamental level of the UD 'the electron' has some definite 
representation in each of infinitely many computations.  The uncertainty comes 
from the many different computations.  Right?  


Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here and now. The QM 
indeterminacy is made into a particular first person comp indeterminacy.  


Where is the here and now if not a localization in a physical world.  


Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world without 
assuming a *primitive* physical world. 

I am OK with the idea that a physical world is that which can be described 
by a Boolean Algebra in a sharable way. The trick is the sharing. It order 
to share something there must be multiple entities that can each participate in 
some way and that those entities are in some way distinguishable from each 
other. 








This is defined as centering by Quine's Propositional Objects as discussed in 
Chalmers book, pg. 60-61... 










The state is well defined, as your state belongs to a computation. It is not 
well defined below your substitution level, but this is only due to your 
ignorance on which computations you belong.  


Right.  What I would generally refer to as 'my state' is a classical state 
(since I don't experience Everett's many worlds).  

But I still don't understand, Consciousness will make your brain, at the level 
below the substitution level, having some well defined state, with an electron, 
for example, described with some precise position. Without consciousness there 
is no material brain at all.   

How does consciousness make a brain or make matter?  I thought your theory 
was that both at made by computations.  My intuition is that, within your 
theory of comp, consciousness implies consciousness of matter and matter is a 
construct of consciousness;  


That's what I was saying.  


Really!? 



? 





I believe that it was Brent that wrote: My intuition is that, within your 
theory of comp, consciousness implies consciousness of matter and matter is a 
construct of consciousness;  and you wrote that you agreed. 









so

Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants of monads

Hi Bruno Marchal  

I'm still trying to figure out how numbers and ideas fit
into Leibniz's metaphysics. Little is written about this issue,
so I have to rely on what Leibniz says otherwise about monads.


Previously I noted that numbers could not be monads because
monads constantly change. Another argument against numbers
being monads is that all monads must be attached to corporeal
bodies. So monads refer to objects in the (already) created world,
whose identities persist, while ideas and numbers are not 
created objects. 

While numbers and ideas cannot be monads, they have to
be are entities in the mind, feelings, and bodily aspects
of monads. For Leibniz refers to the intellect of human
monads.  And similarly, numbers and ideas must be used
in the fictional construction of matter-- in the bodily
aspect of material monads, as well as the construction
of our bodies and brains.

 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/30/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-29, 10:29:23 
Subject: Re: questions on machines, belief, awareness, and knowledge 


On 29 Sep 2012, at 14:43, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: 

 On 24.09.2012 18:23 meekerdb said the following: 
 On 9/24/2012 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 
 On 23 Sep 2012, at 18:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: 
 
 On 23.09.2012 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following: 
 
 On 23 Sep 2012, at 09:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: 
 
 On 22.09.2012 22:49 meekerdb said the following: 
 
 ... 
 
 In the past, Bruno has said that a machine that 
 understands transfinite induction will be conscious. But 
 being conscious and intelligent are not the same thing. 
 
 Brent 
 
 
 In my view this is the same as epiphenomenalism. Engineers 
 develop a robot to achieve a prescribed function. They do not 
 care about consciousness in this respect. Then consciousness 
 will appear automatically but the function developed by 
 engineers does not depend on it. Hence epiphenomenalism seems 
 to apply. 
 
 Not at all. Study UDA to see why exactly, but if comp is 
 correct, consciousness is somehow what defines the physical 
 realities, making possible for engineers to build the machines, 
 and then consciousness, despite not being programmable per se, 
 does have a role, like relatively speeding up the computations. 
 Like non free will, the epiphenomenalism is only 
 apparent because you take the outer god's eyes view, but 
 with comp, there is no matter, nor consciousness, at that 
 level, and we have no access at all at that level (without 
 assuming comp, and accessing it intellectually, that is only 
 arithmetic). 
 
 This is hard to explain if you fail to see the 
 physics/machine's psychology/theology reversal. You are still 
 (consciously or not) maintaining the physical supervenience 
 thesis, or an aristotelian ontology, but comp prevents this to 
 be possible. 
 
 
 Bruno, 
 
 I have considered a concrete case, when engineers develop a 
 robot, not a general one. For such a concrete case, I do not 
 understand your answer. 
 
 I have understood Brent in such a way that when engineers develop 
 a robot they must just care about functionality to achieve and 
 they can ignore consciousness at all. Whether it appears in the 
 robot or not, it is not a business of engineers. Do you agree 
 with such a statement or not? 
 
 In my defense, I only said that the engineers could develop 
 artificial intelligences without considering consciousnees. I didn't 
 say they *must* do so, and in fact I think they are ethically bound 
 to consider it. John McCarthy has already written on this years ago. 
 And it has nothing to do with whether supervenience or comp is true. 
 In either case an intelligent robot is likely to be a conscious being 
 and ethical considerations arise. 
 
 
 
 Dear Bruno and Brent, 
 
 Frankly speaking I do not quite understand you answers. When I try  
 to convert your thoughts to some guidelines for engineers developing  
 robots, I get only something like as follows. 
 
 1) When you make your design, do not care about consciousness, just  
 implement functions required. 
 
 2) When a robot is ready, it may have consciousness. We have not a  
 clue how to check if it has it but you must consider ethical  
 implications (say shutting a robot down may be equivalent to a  
 murder). 
 
 Evgenii 
 
 P.S. In my view 1) and 2) implies epiphenomenolism for consciousness. 

If consciousness is epiphenomenal, how could matter be explained  
through a theory of consciousness/first person, as this is made  
obligatory when we assume that we are machines? 

I remind you that things go in this way, if we are machine: 

number === consciousness === matter 

(and only then: matter === human consciousness === human notion of  
number. That might explains the confusion) 

I assume some basic understanding of the FPI and the UDA here. (FPI =  
first person

Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment


Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive,
at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that everything in
the universe is alive). So what you propose couldn't happen.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/30/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-29, 11:49:19 
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment 




On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:36:36 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: 
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:  
  
  
 On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:10:37 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:  
  
 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Craig Weinberg   
 wrote:  
  
  But you don't need a living cell to transmit a signal. That is my point.  
  Why  
  have a cell?  
  
 There are cells because that's the way organisms evolved. If there  
 were a way of evolving computer hardware and this was adaptive then  
 there would be organisms with computer hardware. It's not impossible  
 that somewhere in the universe there are naturally evolved organisms  
 utilising batteries, conductors and logic gates.  
  
  
 It's not reasonable to say on one hand that there is no significant  
 difference between solid state electronics and living organisms and on the  
 other to blithely accept that not one of the millions of species on Earth  
 have happened to mutate even a single solid state inorganic appendage. You  
 claim it's not impossible, but the evidence that we have in reality does not  
 support that assumption in the least. To the contrary, living organisms are  
 dependent on organic matter to even survive. As far as I know, we don't even  
 see a single individual organism in the history of the world that  
 predominately eats, drinks, or breathes inorganic matter. You are saying  
 that is, what...coincidence?  

Well, almost every organism predominantly made of, drinks and breathes  
inorganic matter, since water and oxygen are inorganic matter. 

While water and oxygen aren't technically organic matter, they are biological 
precursors. I should have worded it that way. My point is that no living 
organisms breathe or drink matter which is not part of an extremely narrow 
range of elements and compounds. 
  

But  
leaving that obvious fact aside, the other obvious fact is that  
evolution has used organic chemistry to make self-replicators because  
that was the easiest way to do it. Do you imagine that if it were easy  
to evolve steel claws which helped predators catch prey that steel  
claws would not have evolved? What would have prevented their  
evolution, divine intervention?  


You are assuming that there are other options though. Maybe there are, but we 
don't know that for sure yet. If there were, it seems like there would be 
either multiple kinds of biology in the history of the world, or individual 
species which have mutated to exploit the variety of inorganic compounds in the 
universe available. What prevented their evolution is the same thing that 
creates thermodynamic irreversibility out of reversible quantum wave functions. 
The universe is an event, not a machine. When something happens, the whole 
universe is changed, and maybe that change becomes the active arrow of 
qualitative progress. Organic chemistry got there first, therefore that door 
may be closed - unless we, as biological agents, open a new one. 

Craig 

  



--  
Stathis Papaioannou  

--  
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/-/b2NOxFv6j_gJ. 
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: Pre-established harmony comp in relation to Platonia and Contingia

2012-09-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Thanks for the very interesting video.

Concerning Platonia and Contingia, there are much to say if we introduce
natural selection, the only well know creative process.

The world of Platonia, in terms of natural selection, is the peak of the
fitness landscape (FT). The FT is the point of perfection from which the
living form, or the living behaviour can not be improved. Contingia is
the world of extinction by random, imprevisible events. When contingia
enters,the most filnely adapted beings perish due to their specialization,
and gives the world to generalists, good in nothing, bacterias, fungi and
adapted of fortune that casually are adapted to the disaster scenario:
scavengers, tunnel diggers, shallow water habitants etc. None of them are
beatiful. But extinction gives a opportunity to new perfect forms that are
better than the former. If there would be no extinction, we would still be
bacterias.

This creative destruction appears also in the market, (That is a controlled
darwinian process under State laws). and in general in any creative process.

The perfect forms inhabit our mind because we have to measure ourselves
against the ideal. Beauty is a measure of closeness to the ideal. I´m
persuaded for example that the beauty of movements of a dancer is related
with the use of energy for a given movement. the less energy the dancer
use, the more beautiful is the movement. And we perceive this use of energy
as smooth and beatiful movement because to mate or to be a friend of a good
user of his energies (by a good neurocoordination) has been crucial for
survial. A good dancer is in the peak of fitness landscape in energy usage,
so he exhibit it. And Platonia in our mind know it.

There are evolutonary explanations for many others notons of beauty.

As Penrose said the motor of this process of evolution and life is the
gradient of entropy. The photosyntesis is a capture of energy that requires
the building of a chemical (and phisical) infrastructure that requires
information processing, from genes to phenotype building programs to
reproduction and so on. And only in a positive gradient of entrophy this
processing is
possiblehttp://www.google.es/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved=0CC8QFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fagcorona1%2Farrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-lifeei=kz1oUNjjIJCxhAesjIDgAgusg=AFQjCNGhgf10g4gWWodpK-QwcKptsdCWTwsig2=LEWaQzY5cTrUV1I8wkA7bQfor
living beings.

I would also like to suggest that the pre-established harmony (PEH)
of Leibniz is more complex but still acts as Leibniz intended,
while one might apply traditional cosmological concepts to it.
Perhaps someone with more physics (and brains) than I
could use this to roughly specify what the PEH is.
In the traditional understanding it would simply be the
decay of order into disorder. Note that Penrose has
looked recently into the issue of how large the entropy
can get. See the series starting at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-D5AUGVcI

I believe that entropy begins to eventually
diminish as gravity.

It may be that comp and the Turing machine have analogous
behaviors.

Have received the following content -
Sender: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-29, 04:18:28
Subject: Platonia and Contingia

Platonia and Contingia

We are all somewhat familiar with Platonia,
the Platonic source of order in the world.

I suggest that there must also be Contingia,
that being our contingent, everyday world, which,
following Boltzmann and the concept of entropy,
is the source of disorder.

I would also like to suggest that Platonic causation
is goal-oriented, also referred to by Aristotle as end causation,
and favors life, while in Contingia, causation is that of
everyday determinism, which tends to create disorder,
entropy, decay and death.

Then there will always be two opposing forces, one
of order (Platonia) and one of disorder or entropy (Contingia).

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/29/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

--
Alberto.

evolution is a cosmic crap shoot

Hi Craig and John,

1. Only living things evolve.
2. Because they have intelligence to see and choose.
3. Which is unplanned, but still seeks goals as all life does.
4. But not all life is equally intelligent.
5. But the seeking will change as the individual and his ambient possible goals 
change.
5. So evolution is a cosmic crap shoot with an variably intelligent player.
 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/30/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-29, 13:20:40 
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment 




On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:56:07 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: 
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg  wrote: 



 You are contradicting yourself.  1) Nothing special about biology  2) 
 Evolution is utterly helpless to create 'complex things' until it stumbled on 
 biology. Please explain. 

If you'd been paying attention you'd know that I already explained this on 
September 2, I repeat it now for your benefit: 


(Said John Clark after searching through every post he's made for the last 
month.)  



There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational design, 
rational designs are, well, rational, but 
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and 
stupid tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it 
couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees! 
Rational designers had less difficulty coming up with the wheel. The only 
advantage Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains it was the 
only way complex objects could get built. 


You are just reasserting the same contradiction. It's not enough to assert that 
evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and rational designs (teleology) are 
different, I am asking you to explain how it is possible for them to be 
different, given your assumption that the latter evolved from the former. Again 
- you are stating that post biological processes are *very* different from 
everything else in the universe, and therefore very special, but then denying 
that there is any relevant difference between biology (the sole source of 
teleology and reason) and *everything else in the entire cosmos*. You haven't 
explained anything. 
  


I can think of a few reasons for natures poor design, the last one is the most 
important: 


Your ability to think and reason is nothing other than nature's poor design. 
I'm not the one saying that biological systems have qualities that inorganic 
systems cannot, you are. 




 I ask again. If biology is nothing special. WHY NOT SKIP THE BIOLOGY? 


I don't understand who you're asking this question to, nature?  

Yes. 


Chemistry exists and under the right conditions (among them the availability of 
liquid water, a energy source and lots and lots of time) a very simple 
reproductive organism can form; and once that happens Evolution can take over 
and produce far more interesting organisms. And if you don't like that fact 
then complain to the laws of physics not to me.   

But you are saying that the experiences of the more interesting organisms can 
easily be produced in the pre-evolutionary stupidity of chemistry or physics. 
  

  



 I am saying why not have cells produce crystal minerals in the ocean, like 
 coral, which use calcium and sodium ions to signal? 


Because Evolution never figured out how to do that, Evolution never figured out 
how to do a great many things, it never even figured out how to make a 
macroscopic wheel or an animal that could breathe fire.   


Then you admit that it would make more sense for human consciousness as you 
conceive of it to be hosted in a skull or knee cap rather than a brain.  It 
just so happens that we showed up in brains. It just so happens that not one 
mutation of one species has ever successfully done that. Just random.  




 But we are evolution.  

I've noticed that when you get into a tight corner you tend to say things like 
X is Y as you did above that sound profound until you think about them for 
about .2 seconds.  


I haven't ever felt in a tight corner talking to you, because nothing that you 
are saying is new to me. Saying that we are evolution isn't supposed to be 
profound, it's an ordinary observation of fact. Maybe that's what you feel in 
the first .1 seconds before your prejudice and denial kick in. 
  



 Why go through this elaborate stage of speciation for a billion years. 

Because as I've said many times, for a billion years the elaborate stage of 
speciation was the only way complex things could get made. That is no longer 
true. 


At any time during those billion years, any other molecule could have developed 
some similar properties  - yet it didn't, but still there is no difference 
between biological precursors and random debris in the universe. 
  



 the computers will happily allow

Evolution according to Platonia and Contingia

Hi Alberto G. Corona  

Yes, it is the goal-seeking aspect of life coming from Platonia
inside or overlooking the survival of the fittest aspect of Contingia.

Lifeless evolution is also possible, as you observe, although
as you observe from Penrose, it could be just due to the gradient
in the entropy.  Good point.

Leibniz allows for an unfolding of life from the changing seeds
evolving within a particular monad (its subsequent generations,
so to speak). According to Leibniz, monads cannot die or be
created, so he would conceive of evolution as an unfolding
of subsequent forms of a given monad, which might
represent a species. Or perhaps the tree of life itself.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/30/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Alberto G. Corona  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-30, 08:43:57 
Subject: Re: Pre-established harmony  comp in relation to Platonia 
andContingia 


Thanks for the very interesting video. 

Concerning Platonia and Contingia, there are much to say if we introduce 
natural selection, the only well know creative process. 

The world of Platonia, in terms of natural selection, is the peak of the 
fitness landscape (FT). ?he FT is the point of perfection from which the 
living form, or the living behaviour can not be improved. ? Contingia is the 
world of extinction by random, imprevisible events. When contingia enters,the 
most filnely adapted beings perish due to their specialization, and gives the 
world to generalists, good in nothing, bacterias, fungi and ? adapted of 
fortune that casually are adapted to the disaster scenario: scavengers, tunnel 
diggers, shallow water habitants etc. ?one of them are beatiful. ?ut extinction 
gives a opportunity to new perfect forms that are better than the former. If 
there would be no extinction, we would still be bacterias. 

This creative destruction appears also in the market, (That is a controlled 
darwinian process under State laws). and in general in any creative process. 

The perfect forms inhabit our mind because we have to measure ourselves against 
the ideal. Beauty is a measure of closeness to the ideal. I? persuaded for 
example that the beauty of movements of a dancer is related with the use of 
energy for a given movement. the less energy the dancer use, the more beautiful 
is the movement. And we perceive this use of energy as smooth and beatiful 
movement because to mate or to be a friend of a good ?ser of his energies (by a 
good neurocoordination) has been crucial for survial. A good dancer is in the 
peak of fitness landscape in energy usage, so he exhibit it. And Platonia in 
our mind know it. 

There are evolutonary explanations for many others notons of beauty. 

As Penrose said the motor of this process of evolution and life ?s the gradient 
of entropy. The photosyntesis is a capture of energy that requires the building 
of a chemical (and phisical) infrastructure that requires information 
processing, from genes to phenotype building programs to reproduction and so 
on. ? And only in a positive gradient of entrophy this processing is possible 
for living beings. 



 I would also like to suggest that the pre-established harmony (PEH) 
 of Leibniz is more complex but still acts as Leibniz intended, 
 while one might apply traditional cosmological concepts to it. 
 Perhaps someone with more physics (and brains) than I 
 could use this to roughly specify what the PEH is. 
 In the traditional understanding it would simply be the 
 decay of order into disorder. Note that Penrose has 
 looked recently into the issue of how large the entropy 
 can get. See the series starting at 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-D5AUGVcI 
 
 I believe that entropy begins to eventually 
 diminish as gravity. 
 
 It may be that comp and the Turing machine have analogous 
 behaviors. 
 
 
 
 
 Have received the following content - 
 Sender: Roger Clough 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-09-29, 04:18:28 
 Subject: Platonia and Contingia 
 
 
 
 Platonia and Contingia 
 
 We are all somewhat familiar with Platonia, 
 the Platonic source of order in the world. 
 
 I suggest that there must also be Contingia, 
 that being our contingent, everyday world, which, 
 following Boltzmann and the concept of entropy, 
 is the source of disorder. 
 
 I would also like to suggest that Platonic causation 
 is goal-oriented, also referred to by Aristotle as end causation, 
 and favors life, while in Contingia, causation is that of 
 everyday determinism, which tends to create disorder, 
 entropy, decay and death. 
 
 Then there will always be two opposing forces, one 
 of order (Platonia) and one of disorder or entropy (Contingia). 
 
 
 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 9/29/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive,
 at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that everything in
 the universe is alive). So what you propose couldn't happen.

Sea shells are made of calcium carbonate, which is not alive in the
ordinary sense, and yet they evolved and became extremely common.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment



On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:55:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Roger Clough 
 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: 
 wrote: 
  
  Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive, 
  at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that everything in 
  the universe is alive). So what you propose couldn't happen. 

 Sea shells are made of calcium carbonate, which is not alive in the 
 ordinary sense, and yet they evolved and became extremely common. 


But it is the organism which builds the shell, not the shell that builds 
the organism. In theory I don't see why an organism couldn't at least 
produce an iron shell in the same way, but I don't presume that is at all 
correct. The lack of iron shelled organisms would suggest that there is 
some other reason. When you say that it's just because it was easier for 
things to evolve the way they did, I don't see any difference between that 
and what I am saying, which is that biological quality experiences may not 
be so easy or even possible to access without biology as it has actually 
evolved.

Craig
 


 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
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/-/1MMcAZANCDcJ.
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: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture



On Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:19:15 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  OK, so you put in the brain implant, switch it in and out of circuit 
  without telling the subject which is which, and ask them how they 
  feel. They can't tell any difference and you can't tell any difference 
  in behaviour. To make the experiment better there would be two 
  researchers, one doing the switching and another analysing the 
  subject's behaviour. With this double blind procedure the implant is 
  pronounced successful. Is that good enough? 
  
  
  No, I think that you have to have each hemisphere of the brain offloaded 
  completely to the device one at a time, then both, and then back, and 
 have 
  the subject live that way at each stage for several months before 
 finally 
  being restored back to their original brain. This would be repeated 
 several 
  times with double blind placebo offloadings. The subject would then 
 decide 
  for themselves if it was safe for them to say yes to the doctor. 

 One would hope the scientists try it with a more limited part of the 
 brain before moving to an entire hemisphere. 

  I entertain this only theoretically though, as I think in reality it 
 would 
  fail completely, with every case resulting right away in 
 unconsciousness, 
  amnesia, coma, death, trauma, and psychosis and the whole project 
 ultimately 
  being abandoned for good. 

 I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results. 
 Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with 
 disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as 
 good as normal hearing. But technology keeps getting better while the 
 human body stays more or less static, so at some point technology will 
 match and then exceed it. At the very least, there is no theoretical 
 reason why it should not. 



I'm all for neural mods and implants. Augmenting and repairing brain = 
great, replacing the brain = theoretically viable only in theories rooted 
in blind physicalism, in which consciousness is inconceivable to begin with.

Craig

 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
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/-/Fo7uiYuWyG8J.
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: Epiphenomenalism


On 9/30/2012 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/29/2012 7:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here and now. The QM 
indeterminacy is made into a particular first person comp indeterminacy.


Where is the here and now if not a localization in a physical world.


Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world without assuming a 
*primitive* physical world.


Physical objects are exactly the kind of thing that are defined ostensively.


They are referred too ostensively. They are not defined in that way, at least not in 
the theory.


Well of course, nothing can be referred to ostensively *in a theory*. But that's how 
theoretical definitions are given meaning via reference to what we perceive.


Only in practice, they referred too ostensively. In our context, we search a theory, not 
a practice.


A theory that can't be connected to practice is just abstract mathematics, a kind of 
language game.  In fact you do connect your theory to practice by reference to diaries and 
perceptions.


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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

2012-09-30 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:


  It's not enough to assert that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and
 rational designs (teleology) are different, I am asking you to explain how
 it is possible for them to be different


The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step
backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more
detail about this in my last post and also gave you 4 more reasons how and
why intelligent design is different from random mutation and natural
selection.


  given your assumption that the latter evolved from the former.


The environment is far far too complex to hard wire in all the rules about
the best way for an organism to survive, there are just too many of them.
But Evolution found that if it could wire together just a few cells it
could start to use a few inductive rules; being inductive it didn't always
cause the organism to do the right thing for survival but it succeeded more
that it failed and that was a huge advance. Later more cells got wired
together and you started to get something you could call a brain and more
complex inductive rules could be taken advantage of, and animals that were
really good at this got their genes passed onto the next generation. Sill
later Evolution found a way for these brains to use statistics and rules of
thumb and eventually even deduction. When brains got to this point
Evolution was no longer the only way that complex objects could get built,
there was a much better and faster way.


  you are stating that post biological processes are *very* different from
 everything else in the universe,


Yes.

 and therefore very special


Yes.

 but then denying that there is any relevant difference between biology
 (the sole source of teleology and reason) and *everything else in the
 entire cosmos*.


I don't know if biology exists anyplace other than on the earth, if it
doesn't then 3 billion years ago something happened  on earth that was
different from anything else in the entire cosmos. I don't know if
intelligence and culture exists anywhere other than the earth but if it
doesn't then less that a million years ago something happened to a biped on
this planet that was different from anything else in biology here or
anywhere else. And in the last 50 years its become increasingly clear that
biology will not be the only source of teleology and reason for much longer.

 You haven't explained anything.


In just my last post I did a better job at explaining something than I've
ever seen you do.

 Your ability to think and reason is nothing other than nature's poor
 design.


Yes, if I was designed better I could reason better. Before long computers
will be designed better.

 I'm not the one saying that biological systems have qualities that
 inorganic systems cannot, you are.


I'm saying they do not, I'm not saying they cannot.

 But you are saying that the experiences of the more interesting organisms
 can easily be produced in the pre-evolutionary stupidity of chemistry or
 physics.


Yes, if you put those inorganic parts together in the right way you could
make some very interesting things but Evolution never figured out how to do
it because of the flaws inherent in the process which I explained in
considerable detail in my last post. Human designers don't have those
limitations and will find the job if not easy at least far easier, and they
operate at a enormously faster time scale than Evolution does.


   Then you admit that it would make more sense for human consciousness as
 you conceive of it to be hosted in a skull or knee cap rather than a
 brain.  It just so happens that we showed up in brains.


I can't make any sense out of that, I don't know what you're trying to say,
I hope it's not that consciousness has a position.

 There can be logic without reason or intuition, and there can be
 intuition without logic without reason, but there cannot be reason without
 intuition. Einstein would have agreed with me


Einstein's intuition about physics was usually (but not always) correct ,
your intuition about consciousness is obviously wrong, as obviously wrong
as X is not Y and X is not not Y.

  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: Einstein and space


Hi Roger Clough,

I have regrouped my comments because they are related.


On 30 Sep 2012, at 13:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

With his relativity principle, Einstein showed us that
there is no such thing as space, because all distances
are relational, relative, not absolute.


With comp there is clear sense in which there is not space, are there  
is only numbers (or lambda terms) and that they obey only two simple  
laws: addition and multiplication (resp. application and abstraction).


Note that with Einstein, there is still an absolute space-time.





The Michelson朚orley experiment also proved that
there is no ether, there is absolutely nothing
there in what we call space.


I agree, but there are little loopholes, perhaps. A friend of mine  
made his PhD on a plausible intepretation of Poincaré relativity  
theory, and points on the fact that such a theory can explain some of  
the non covariance of the Bohmian quantum mechanics (which is a many- 
world theory + particles having a necessary unknown initial conditions  
so that an added potential will guide the particle in one universe  
among those described by the universal quantum wave.

I don't take this seriously, though.



Photons simply
jump across space, their so-called waves are
simply mathematical constructions.


In that case you will have to explain me how mathematical construction  
can go through two slits and interfere.






Leibniz similarly said, in his own way, that
neither space nor time are substances.
They do not exist. They do exist, however,
when they join to become (extended) substances
appearing as spacetime.


OK. (and comp plausible).

other post:

Hi Stephen P. King

Leibniz would not go along with epiphenomena because
the matter that materialists base their beliefs in
is not real, so it can't emanate consciousness.


Comp true .





Leibniz did not believe in matter in the same way that
atheists today do not believe in God.


Comp true .





And with good reason. Leibniz contended that not only matter,
but spacetime itself (or any extended substance) could not
real because extended substances are infinitely divisible.


Space time itself is not real for a deeper reason.

Why would the physical not be infinitely divisible and extensible,  
especially if not real?







Personally. I substitute Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
as the basis for this view because the fundamental particles
are supposedly divisible.


By definition an atom is not divisible, and the atoms today are the  
elementary particles. Not sure you can divide an electron or a Higgs  
boson.
With comp particles might get the sme explanation as the physicist, as  
fixed points for some transformation in a universal group or universal  
symmetrical system.
The simple groups, the exceptional groups, the Monster group can play  
some role there (I speculate).





Or one might substitute
Einstein's principle of the relativity of spacetime.
The uncertainties left with us by Heisenberg on
the small scale and Einstein on the large scale
ought to cause materialists to base their beliefs on
something less elusive than matter.



I can't agree more. Matter is plausibly the last ether of physics.  
Provably so if comp is true, and if there is no flaw in UDA.



OTHER POST

Hi Bruno Marchal

I'm still trying to figure out how numbers and ideas fit
into Leibniz's metaphysics. Little is written about this issue,
so I have to rely on what Leibniz says otherwise about monads.



OK. I will interpret your monad by intensional number.

let me be explicit on this. I fixe once and for all a universal  
system: I chose the programming language LISP. Actually, a subset of  
it: the programs LISP computing only (partial) functions from N to N,  
with some list representation of the numbers like (0), (S 0), (S S  
0), ...


I enumerate in lexicographic way all the programs LISP. P_1, P_2,  
P_3, ...


The ith partial computable functions phi_i is the one computed by P_i.

I can place on N a new operation, written #, with a # b = phi_a(b),  
that is the result of the application of the ath program LISP, P_a, in  
the enumeration of all the program LISP above, on b.


Then I define a number as being intensional when it occurs at the left  
of an expression like a # b.


The choice of a universal system transforms each number into a  
(partial) function from N to N.


A number u is universal if phi_u(a, b) = phi_a(b). u interprets or  
understands the program a and apply it to on b to give the result  
phi_a(b). a is the program, b is the data, and u is the computer.  (a,  
b) here abbreviates some number coding the couple (a, b), to stay  
withe function having one argument (so u is a P_i, there is a  
universal program P_u).


Universal is an intensional notion, it concerns the number playing the  
role of a name for the function. The left number in the (partial)  
operation #.







Previously I noted that numbers could not be monads because
monads

Re: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture


On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as
good as normal hearing. But technology keeps getting better while the
human body stays more or less static, so at some point technology will
match and then exceed it. At the very least, there is no theoretical
reason why it should not.


Indeed.  And cochlear implants could have a much wider frequency range (like I did when I 
was younger :-) ) and they even be designed to 'hear' RF.  So then Nagel will be able to 
ask What is it like to be a human?


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: Fwd: Sokal-type hoax on two theological conferences


On 9/30/2012 4:31 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Hehe.

Fine.

However, the concrete  abstract seems very promising for a theologian.
It is clear that Boudry know the concepts that he manage. His abstract
is a piece of cake, it is a I solved the Teologian problem of our
time! . It is not pure gibberish.

Remenber that the Sokal affair was around a complete article, not an
abstract.


Boudry also wrote a complete aritcle, which was published. You can follow the link and 
read it, if you'r so inclined.


Brent


I know that a great number of hoax papers are submitted and
accepted in scientific press.Many of them are not for joking purposes,
but for people that want relevance, fame and money. This hasn´t  to
undermine hard sciences. ( Not in the case of modern cultural and
gender studies  that are pure indoctrination )

In my particular case, I worked in European I+D projects where
subsidies depended on the imagination, the length of the documents and
the appropriate use of buzzwords.

Alberto.


--
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: Epiphenomenalism



On 30 Sep 2012, at 18:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/30/2012 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/29/2012 7:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here  
and now. The QM indeterminacy is made into a particular first  
person comp indeterminacy.


Where is the here and now if not a localization in a  
physical world.


Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world  
without assuming a *primitive* physical world.


Physical objects are exactly the kind of thing that are defined  
ostensively.


They are referred too ostensively. They are not defined in that  
way, at least not in the theory.


Well of course, nothing can be referred to ostensively *in a  
theory*. But that's how theoretical definitions are given meaning  
via reference to what we perceive.


Sure. But the meaning can be clean from metaphysical prejudices also.





Only in practice, they referred too ostensively. In our context, we  
search a theory, not a practice.


A theory that can't be connected to practice is just abstract  
mathematics, a kind of language game.


I can' agree more, and that is why I criticize physicalism (not  
physics), as it cut the possible link between conscious practice and  
theory.
Keep in my that my goal is to explain the origin of matter and  
consciousness.




In fact you do connect your theory to practice by reference to  
diaries and perceptions.


Absolutely so.
But I use the yes doctor practice, to still illustrate a conceptual  
point, which is that if comp is true, the mind is basically solved by  
the dreams of the universal numbers, and matter is an open problem,  
as we have only the dreams and the persistence of laws might seem more  
difficult. The math just shows that the more we try to refute comp by  
that problem, the more we get a quantum like weirdness, making perhaps  
the quantum aspect of nature a reflect of our universal number dreamy  
nature.


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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of salt and
iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is no reason
why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the reality
that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic biologically
active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there couldn't be
inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily invested in
the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or impossible, but
that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take that rather
odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important data.
Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in the air
shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide.

I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an
advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a
gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such
organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by
weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no
organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation
consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the
evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is
the antithesis of life. Why, when there is an obvious and better
explanation consistent with Occam's Razor?

Hi Stathis,

Humans are not organisms in Nature? Your statement is only true if
they are not. How did this come to happen? Your thesis here requires
that the existence of Humans with steel claws
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1lY2rKh0skXX7mOsXrRsG3dLgp2cVHS9Jkyp-_iQXIZ_UqlOb
and with guns
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/pal%20a%20young%20gunman.jpgis, somehow,
outside of the definition of organisms. How the heck does this happen

--
Onward!

Stephen

Re: Einstein and space


On 9/30/2012 7:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

With his relativity principle, Einstein showed us that
there is no such thing as space, because all distances
are relational, relative, not absolute.

The Michelson朚orley experiment also proved that
there is no ether, there is absolutely nothing
there in what we call space. Photons simply
jump across space, their so-called waves are
simply mathematical constructions.

Leibniz similarly said, in his own way, that
neither space nor time are substances.
They do not exist. They do exist, however,
when they join to become (extended) substances
appearing as spacetime.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/30/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen





Indeed! We just have different ideas about monads. I see the 
monads, as Leibniz defined them, as flawed. I seek to fix that flaw so 
that the theory of monads works with other modern concepts.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: Evolution outshines reason by far



On 30 Sep 2012, at 15:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

And if you think that weels are superior, NS invented it, because  
the invertor of the weel was a product of natural selection. Even  
your feeling of superiority of the weel and the very feeling of  
superiority of reason is a product of natural selection.  The claim  
of superiority of reason over nature is the last vestige of   
unjustified antropocentrism in its most dangerous form: Pride and  
self worship.


Good point.

And today, those who get the real power on this planet are still the  
bacteria. We need them. The vast majority doesn't need us, except,  
well many but still a minority which lives with us.
Strictly speaking those bacteria are as modern as us, as leaves of the  
fourth dimensional life structure of this planet.
But all this might be the result of something more simple, a bit like  
z := z^2 + c iterations in the complex plane.


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: Epiphenomenalism


On 9/30/2012 8:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Leibniz would not go along with epiphenomena because
the matter that materialists base their beliefs in
is not real, so it can't emanate consciousness.

Leibniz did not believe in matter in the same way that
atheists today do not believe in God.

And with good reason. Leibniz contended that not only matter,
but spacetime itself (or any extended substance) could not
real because extended substances are infinitely divisible.

Personally. I substitute Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
as the basis for this view because the fundamental particles
are supposedly divisible. Or one might substitute
Einstein's principle of the relativity of spacetime.
The uncertainties left with us by Heisenberg on
the small scale and Einstein on the large scale
ought to cause materialists to base their beliefs on
something less elusive than matter.
I agree! The only problem that I have with Leibniz' model is his 
concept of a Pre-established Harmony. This can be fixed, but it requires 
some very subtle arguments from computational complexity theory.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants of monads


On 9/30/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

I'm still trying to figure out how numbers and ideas fit
into Leibniz's metaphysics. Little is written about this issue,
so I have to rely on what Leibniz says otherwise about monads.


Previously I noted that numbers could not be monads because
monads constantly change. Another argument against numbers
being monads is that all monads must be attached to corporeal
bodies. So monads refer to objects in the (already) created world,
whose identities persist, while ideas and numbers are not
created objects.

While numbers and ideas cannot be monads, they have to
be are entities in the mind, feelings, and bodily aspects
of monads. For Leibniz refers to the intellect of human
monads.  And similarly, numbers and ideas must be used
in the fictional construction of matter-- in the bodily
aspect of material monads, as well as the construction
of our bodies and brains.

Dear Roger,

Bruno's idea is a form of Pre-Established Hamony, in that the 
truth of the numbers is a pre-established ontological primitive.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment


On 9/30/2012 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive,
at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that everything in
the universe is alive). So what you propose couldn't happen.


The unstated assumption here is that organism are defined by the 
bounding surface of their skin, anything 'outside' of that is being 
assumed to not be part of them. It is not hard to knock down this idea 
as nonsensical!


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: Evolution outshines reason by far

On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Whoever said that does not know what he says:

There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational design, rational
designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid
tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come
up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees! Rational designers had less
difficulty coming up with the wheel. The only advantage Evolution had is that until it
managed to invent brains it was the only way complex objects could get built.

First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela of the bacteria, invented
about 3800 million years ago under intense comet bombardement.

Did you miss the word macroscopic?

Try to do it yourself in the same conditions ;). If there is no weel in natural
evolution is because legs are far superior.

And if you think that weels are superior, NS invented it, because the invertor of the
weel was a product of natural selection. Even your feeling of superiority of the weel
and the very feeling of superiority of reason is a product of natural selection. The
claim of superiority of reason over nature is the last vestige of unjustified
antropocentrism in its most dangerous form: Pride and self worship.

But NS couldn't 'invent' it for macroscopic size animals traveling on hard smooth
surfaces, because it had already 'invented' legs and there was no evolutionary path from
legs to wheels.

And second, with more relaxed mood, I have to say, as I said many times here, that
evolution works simultaneously with infinite variables and problems at the same time:
log term and short term. Therefore we NEVER are sure of knowing in FULL the reasons

You mean the random events and the selection events - there are no *reasons*.

behind an evolutionary design and therefor we can not understand FULY an evolutionary
design. That gives evolutionary design an appearance of mess poor design and so on. This
is NOT the case. If evolution and reason collide, the prudent is to consider that the
reason don´t know enough.
That is because Reason work to solve a single problem, Cognitive scientist say that can
handle no more than seven variables at the same time for a single problem.

THAT is the reason WHY the human designs are made of modules with discrete interfaces.
No matter if we talk about architecture, computer science or social engineering, Each
rational design module solves a single problem and comunicate with other modules in
discrete ways. This is what is considered good designs ,.

Not in general. Some engineers consider it good design to make multiple uses of the same
structure, e.g. there was a German motorcycle that used the gear shift lever to also serve
as the kickstarter, more recently Ducati designed their racing motorcycles to be
'frameless', using the engine as the structural member.

BUT THESE RULES OF GOOD DESIGN ARE A CONSEQUIENCE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF REASON. Reason
does not produce optimal solutions. it produce the optimal solution that he can handle
without breaking.

Not limitations, but the recognition that a modular design can be easily changed to solve
problems, usually by changing one module. But with a non-modular design you may have to
start over from scratch; which is why evolution gets stuck on local maxima like legs and
no wheels. Incidentally Ducati's frameless design was a maintenance nightmare, didn't
handle well, and couldn't be modified. They went back to a conventional frame.

Natural selection takes the whole problem and produce the optimal solution without
modular limitations. Starting from scratch, evolutionary algoritms have designed
electronic circuits with a half or a third of components, that are more fast that the
equivalent rational designs. As Koza, for example has done:

http://www.genetic-programming.com/johnkoza.html

These circuits designs are impossible to understand rationally. why? because they are
not modular. There is no division of the problem in smaller problems. a transistor may
be connected to more than one input or output and so on. But they are better, ligther,
faster. it seems a Bad design but this is a subjective perception, as a consequience
of our rational inherent limitations.

It is not a casual that genetic algoritms are used whenever 1) it is or very difficult
to break a problem in parts 2) is easy to measure how good a solution is.

I have used genetic-evolutionary algoritms for deducing the location of extinction
resources in a simulated firing. The algoritm deduced the optimal location every time.
the only problem is that we did not know WHY this was the optimal solution.

But in genetic-evolution algorithms you have the luxury of adjusting the randomness and of
starting over from different initial values.

In the same way, an human organ can perform

Re: Pre-established harmony comp in relation to Platonia and Contingia

On 9/30/2012 8:43 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Thanks for the very interesting video.

Hi Alberto,

I agree. Roger Penrose is one of my favorite theorists.

Concerning Platonia and Contingia, there are much to say if we
introduce natural selection, the only well know creative process.

The world of Platonia, in terms of natural selection, is the peak of
the fitness landscape (FT). The FT is the point of perfection from
which the living form, or the living behaviour can not be improved.
Contingia is the world of extinction by random, imprevisible events.
When contingia enters,the most filnely adapted beings perish due to
their specialization, and gives the world to generalists, good in
nothing, bacterias, fungi and adapted of fortune that casually are
adapted to the disaster scenario: scavengers, tunnel diggers, shallow
water habitants etc. None of them are beatiful. But extinction gives
a opportunity to new perfect forms that are better than the former. If
there would be no extinction, we would still be bacterias.

A very good point! One of my constant complaints is that the
Selection aspect of evolution is grossly neglected in discussions of it.

This creative destruction appears also in the market, (That is a
controlled darwinian process under State laws). and in general in any
creative process.

Yes, it is the tendency to select an outcome from a domain of
many possible outcomes. Mathematically, it resembles a many-to-one
mapping function. Mutation, in evolutionary models, can be seen
mathematically as a one-to-many mapping function. It is interesting to
me that these two mapping functions are the inverse or dual of each
other. I think that this feature can be used to mathematically model
evolution.

The perfect forms inhabit our mind because we have to measure
ourselves against the ideal. Beauty is a measure of closeness to the
ideal. I´m persuaded for example that the beauty of movements of a
dancer is related with the use of energy for a given movement. the
less energy the dancer use, the more beautiful is the movement. And we
perceive this use of energy as smooth and beatiful movement because to
mate or to be a friend of a good user of his energies (by a good
neurocoordination) has been crucial for survial. A good dancer is in
the peak of fitness landscape in energy usage, so he exhibit it. And
Platonia in our mind know it.

There are evolutonary explanations for many others notons of beauty.

As Penrose said the motor of this process of evolution and life is
the gradient of entropy. The photosyntesis is a capture of energy that
requires the building of a chemical (and phisical) infrastructure that
requires information processing, from genes to phenotype building
programs to reproduction and so on. And only in a positive gradient of
entrophy this processing is possible
http://www.google.es/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved=0CC8QFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fagcorona1%2Farrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-lifeei=kz1oUNjjIJCxhAesjIDgAgusg=AFQjCNGhgf10g4gWWodpK-QwcKptsdCWTwsig2=LEWaQzY5cTrUV1I8wkA7bQ
for living beings.

It might be that living being are, as an equivalence class, all
the possible structures that can process gradients of entropy for the
purpose of generated their structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-D5AUGVcI

I believe that entropy begins to eventually
diminish as gravity.

It may be that comp and the Turing machine have analogous
behaviors.

snip

--
Onward!

Stephen

Re: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture


On 9/30/2012 2:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as
good as normal hearing. But technology keeps getting better while the
human body stays more or less static, so at some point technology will
match and then exceed it. At the very least, there is no theoretical
reason why it should not.


Indeed.  And cochlear implants could have a much wider frequency range 
(like I did when I was younger :-) ) and they even be designed to 
'hear' RF.  So then Nagel will be able to ask What is it like to be a 
human?


Brent

Hi Brent,

The actual real world Cochlear implants that have been installed 
have a very feeble range of frequencies as the ability to interface the 
device with the brain is not a well understood area. In principle it 
should be possible to create an entire full spectrum detection system. 
The hard problem is how do you interface with a brain.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Evolution outshines reason by far


On 9/30/2012 2:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Whoever said that does not know what he says:

There are great differences between evolutionary designs and 
rational design, rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow 
and stupid tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the 
problem but it couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that 
could rotate in 360 degrees! Rational designers had less difficulty 
coming up with the wheel. The only advantage Evolution had is that 
until it managed to invent brains it was the only way complex objects 
could get built.



First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela of 
the bacteria, invented about 3800 million years ago under intense 
comet bombardement.


Did you miss the word macroscopic?


Hi Brent,

Could it be that legs are more efficient in generating motion 
that can be directed than wheels? For example, how do you propose that 
Nature would implement way to get blood and nerve signals across the gap 
in the bearings that is necessary in some form of wheel. It is hard 
enough to get signals reliably across the boundary of the moving part of 
a wheel and the axle in the steering wheel of a car. How do you do 
implement an interface for liquids?
The main unstated assumption in this conversation is that organism 
have to be mutually compatible to some degree with each other in order 
for living to occur. Evolution that does not jump gaps. /*Natura non 
facit saltus.*/


Sometimes your remarks demonstrate a remarkable lack of imagination.



Try to do it yourself in the same conditions ;). If there is no weel 
in natural evolution is because legs are far superior.


And if you think that weels are superior, NS invented it, because the 
invertor of the weel was a product of natural selection. Even your 
feeling of superiority of the weel and the very feeling of 
superiority of reason is a product of natural selection.  The claim 
of superiority of reason over nature is the last vestige of 
 unjustified antropocentrism in its most dangerous form: Pride and 
self worship.


But NS couldn't 'invent' it for macroscopic size animals traveling on 
hard smooth surfaces, because it had already 'invented' legs and there 
was no evolutionary path from legs to wheels.




And second, with more relaxed mood, I have to say, as I said many 
times here, that evolution works simultaneously with infinite 
variables and problems at the same time: log term and short term. 
Therefore we NEVER are sure of knowing in FULL the reasons


You mean the random events and the selection events - there are no 
*reasons*.


That you can imagine, sure.



behind an evolutionary design and therefor we can not understand FULY 
an evolutionary design. That gives evolutionary design an appearance 
of mess poor design and so on. This is NOT the case. If evolution and 
reason collide, the prudent is to consider that the reason don´t know 
enough.
That is because Reason work to solve a single problem, Cognitive 
scientist say that  can handle no more than seven variables at the 
same time for a single problem.


THAT is the reason WHY the human designs are made of modules with 
discrete interfaces. No matter if we talk about architecture, 
computer science or social engineering, Each rational design module 
solves a single problem and comunicate with other modules in discrete 
ways. This is what is considered good designs ,.


Not in general.  Some engineers consider it good design to make 
multiple uses of the same structure, e.g. there was a German 
motorcycle that used the gear shift lever to also serve as the 
kickstarter, more recently Ducati designed their racing motorcycles to 
be 'frameless', using the engine as the structural member.


So what? You are assuming an intelligent entity in your argument 
and complaining that Nature is stupid because it does not seem to do 
things as nicely as some tiny cherry-picked selection of human 
engineered designs. What is your purpose in this conversation? It is 
certainly not to increase the understanding of the members of this list!




BUT THESE RULES OF GOOD DESIGN ARE A CONSEQUIENCE OF THE LIMITATIONS 
OF REASON.  Reason does not produce optimal solutions. it produce the 
optimal solution that he can handle without breaking.


Not limitations, but the recognition that a modular design can be 
easily changed to solve problems, usually by changing one module. But 
with a non-modular design you may have to start over from scratch; 
which is why evolution gets stuck on local maxima like legs and no 
wheels.  Incidentally Ducati's frameless design was a maintenance 
nightmare, didn't handle well, and couldn't be modified.  They went 
back to a conventional frame.


Organism on Earth seem to have a basic structure that is modular, 
in that each cell has a power supply, guidance system and other

Re: Evolution outshines reason by far


Hi John,

Thank you for you wise remarks. ;-) I hope we can weed out the errors

On 9/30/2012 5:10 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Stephen (Brent, Alberto, plus plus plus)
with a discussion so long that my arthritic fingers stopped scrolling 
down - on EVOLUTION - back and forth.
I resent the word because it points to a forward-looking *_aim_* to 
reach SOME end (whatever that may be) - coming at best as a remnant 
from religious-like ways of thinking.
I consider the 'change' involved as outcome of a non-random 
transformational process under pressures partially knowable and 
partially not, as influences from the infinite complexity, the 
background of our 'world'. The 'givens' are unrestricted, natural 
selection is an artifact of compliance with circumstances WITHIN the 
model WE consider for us.
Lots of good ideas in the discussion - with lots of erroneous 
conclusions.
The variety of Everything exceeds our imagination and every item 
participates unlimitedly on its own. The 'perfect' engineering is a 
variant of the human animal's mindwork, definitely not the only and 
not the best.

Wheel? good idea.
Can it perform a sidestep for safety, as a foot does? no.
I apply the word almost to characterise the quality of human 
technology. We are missing the still unknown from our applicable 
inventory and do not even 'imagine' how and in what form that infinite 
part may work(?).

I say: relations. Are these agents?
When in my 'body' (undefined!) trillion cells and 100trillion microbes 
cooperate as a society and I feel like 'myself',
every one item is subject to attraction/repulsion in activity in more 
aspects than we MAY know.

We know more than we can take and less than necessary.
My solution in my (scientific?) agnosticism is: I dunno.
Keeps me from drawing faulty conclusions and erecting theories that do 
not fit (later on to be corrected, like: dark matter/energy/mass etc. 
- or the 'unflat' Earth).

JM



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Evolution outshines reason by far

On 9/30/2012 1:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/30/2012 2:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Whoever said that does not know what he says:

There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational design,
rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid
tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come
up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees! Rational designers had
less difficulty coming up with the wheel. The only advantage Evolution had is that
until it managed to invent brains it was the only way complex objects could get built.

First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela of the bacteria, invented
about 3800 million years ago under intense comet bombardement.

Did you miss the word macroscopic?

Hi Brent,

Could it be that legs are more efficient in generating motion that can be directed
than wheels?

They are more effective over rough surfaces and obstacles, which is no doubt why they
evolved first.

For example, how do you propose that Nature would implement way to get blood and nerve
signals across the gap in the bearings that is necessary in some form of wheel. It is
hard enough to get signals reliably across the boundary of the moving part of a wheel
and the axle in the steering wheel of a car. How do you do implement an interface for
liquids?

Exactly my point. It's hard to get there from here.

The main unstated assumption in this conversation is that organism have to be
mutually compatible to some degree with each other in order for living to occur.
Evolution that does not jump gaps. /*Natura non facit saltus.*/

Sometimes your remarks demonstrate a remarkable lack of imagination.

Or so you imagine.

Try to do it yourself in the same conditions ;). If there is no weel in natural
evolution is because legs are far superior.

But NS couldn't 'invent' it for macroscopic size animals traveling on hard smooth
surfaces, because it had already 'invented' legs and there was no evolutionary path
from legs to wheels.

You mean the random events and the selection events - there are no *reasons*.

That you can imagine, sure.

So are you contending that evolution is not driven by random variation? that there are
secret reasons for what evolved? Sounds like Intelligent Design.

behind an evolutionary design and therefor we can not understand FULY an evolutionary
design. That gives evolutionary design an appearance of mess poor design and so on.
This is NOT the case. If evolution and reason collide, the prudent is to consider that
the reason don´t know enough.
That is because Reason work to solve a single problem, Cognitive scientist say that
can handle no more than seven variables at the same time for a single problem.

Not in general. Some engineers consider it good design to make multiple uses of the
same structure, e.g. there was a German motorcycle that used the gear shift lever to
also serve as the kickstarter, more recently Ducati designed their racing motorcycles
to be 'frameless', using the engine as the structural member.

So what? You are assuming an intelligent entity

I thought it was common knowledge that engineers are intelligent entities.

in your argument and complaining that Nature is stupid because it does not seem to do
things as nicely as some tiny cherry-picked selection of human engineered designs. What
is your purpose in this conversation? It is certainly not to increase the understanding
of the members of this list!

It should improve Alberto's understanding who seems to be under the misapprehension that
evolution will always produce a design that reason cannot improve on - and if it seems
that reason can improve on it, it is just because evolution has foreseen a future in which
its design will be better.

BUT THESE RULES OF

Re: How many of the Fortune 400 are political liberals?

On 9/30/2012 5:34 PM, meekerdb wrote:
LOL, where did you find that definition? Almost all people at the
top are liberals.

Really? How many of the Fortune 400 are political
liberals...three?...four?

You might like to look at some demographic studies ... Liberal with
others peoples money... Conservatives are an entirely different kind
of idiot.

Thelist one gets from Google
https://www.google.com/#hl=ensclient=psy-abq=fortune+400+list+political+affiliationoq=fortune+400+list+political+affiliationgs_l=hp.3...1278.9221.2.9395.22.22.0.0.0.0.97.1712.22.22.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.hqns6GGS45kpbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.fp=f984dbbd36939e42biw=1527bih=812
is difficult to get hard numbers from.

It seems that both of our individual claims are wrong by this
thread: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/253572.html

Subject:*Re: Political orientation of wealthy Americans*
Answered By:*bobbie7-ga*
http://answers.google.com/answers/ratings/users/3930590209168866045.htmlon
21 Sep 2003 19:15 PDT

Rated:3 out of 5 stars

Hello Gordoncitizen,

In response to your clarification that you wished to accept my
findings as the answer to your question, I am providing the following
information to you.

The name and source of the publication is:

The Myth of Old Money Liberalism: The Politics of the Forbes 400
Richest Americans
By VAL BURRIS,
University of Oregon
http://www.uoregon.edu/~vburris/oldmoney.pdf
http://www.uoregon.edu/%7Evburris/oldmoney.pdf

Here is the data:

===
Political Partisanship of New Rich and Old Rich
===

---
New Rich
---

Democrat 9%
Strong Democrat 20%
Republican 16%
Strong Republican36%
Bipartisan 19%

---
Old Rich
---

Democrat 6%
Strong Democrat 13%
Republican 10%
Strong Republican 59%
Bipartisan12%
---

The above data is on page 8 - Figure 2
University of Oregon
http://www.uoregon.edu/~vburris/oldmoney.pdf
http://www.uoregon.edu/%7Evburris/oldmoney.pdf

On page 7 - Figure 1, you will find the bar chart illustrating the
Mean Percentage of Contributions to Republicans and Democrats.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~vburris/oldmoney.pdf
http://www.uoregon.edu/%7Evburris/oldmoney.pdf

New Rich were defined as those whose parents did not have substantial
wealth or own a business worth more than $1 million.

Rising Rich were defined as those who inherited small businesses or
wealth worth more than $1 million, but insufficient to place them on
the Forbes list without a significant increase in their wealth during
their lifetimes (usually a result of their success in building a small
business into a large corporation).

Old Rich were defined as those who were born into wealth sufficient
to place them on the Forbes 400 list.

--
Onward!

Stephen

inline: 3_0_stars.gif

Re: How many of the Fortune 400 are political liberals?


On 9/30/2012 5:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/30/2012 5:34 PM, meekerdb wrote:
LOL, where did you find that definition? Almost all people at the 
top are liberals.


Really?  How many of the Fortune 400 are political 
liberals...three?...four?


Hi Brent,

I was thinking more along the lines of what is in this article 
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/200911/50-most-powerful-people-in-dc#slide=1 
in my comment above.





--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture



On Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:45:56 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 9/30/2012 2:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:
  
 On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 

 I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
 Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
 disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as
 good as normal hearing. But technology keeps getting better while the
 human body stays more or less static, so at some point technology will
 match and then exceed it. At the very least, there is no theoretical
 reason why it should not.

  
 Indeed.  And cochlear implants could have a much wider frequency range 
 (like I did when I was younger :-) ) and they even be designed to 'hear' 
 RF.  So then Nagel will be able to ask What is it like to be a human?

 Brent

 Hi Brent,

 The actual real world Cochlear implants that have been installed have 
 a very feeble range of frequencies as the ability to interface the device 
 with the brain is not a well understood area. In principle it should be 
 possible to create an entire full spectrum detection system. The hard 
 problem is how do you interface with a brain.


Exactly. It's one thing for a person to use an artificial hand, but what is 
it that learns to use an artificial 'you'? It's hard for me to understand 
how this obvious Grand Canyon is repeatedly glossed over in these 
conversations. Head amputation? No big deal... Ehhh, not so fast I say, and 
saying not so fast doesn't make someone a Luddite, it just doesn't make 
sense that without understanding anything about how or why subjectivity 
comes to be that we should presume to reproduce it through imitation of the 
very body parts which seem to show now trace of consciousness without us.

Craig 

 

 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

  

-- 
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/-/lXpaf0Ub_7IJ.
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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment



On Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:43:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:



 On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:
  

   It's not enough to assert that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and 
 rational designs (teleology) are different, I am asking you to explain how 
 it is possible for them to be different


 The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step 
 backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more 
 detail about this in my last post and also gave you 4 more reasons how and 
 why intelligent design is different from random mutation and natural 
 selection.  


That is not what I am asking. You are describing ways that they are 
different, not explaining how it is possible for these differences to arise.
 

  

  given your assumption that the latter evolved from the former. 


 The environment is far far too complex to hard wire in all the rules about 
 the best way for an organism to survive, there are just too many of them.


Blue-green algae survives all over the world since the Pre-Cambrian Era. 
Survival is not complex. Acquire nutrients. Reproduce. The end.
 

 But Evolution found that if it could wire together just a few cells it 
 could start to use a few inductive rules;


This is pure metaphor. Evolution doesn't 'find' anything. You are falsely 
attributing intention and analysis to an unconscious process. You are going 
back and forth between elevating evolution and nature to Godlike status and 
diminishing it to idiocy.
 

 being inductive it didn't always cause the organism to do the right thing 
 for survival but it succeeded more that it failed and that was a huge 
 advance. Later more cells got wired together and you started to get 
 something you could call a brain and more complex inductive rules could be 
 taken advantage of, and animals that were really good at this got their 
 genes passed onto the next generation. Sill later Evolution found a way for 
 these brains to use statistics and rules of thumb and eventually even 
 deduction. When brains got to this point Evolution was no longer the only 
 way that complex objects could get built, there was a much better and 
 faster way. 


Evolution = The right things in the right places don't die. Nothing else. 
 

  

  you are stating that post biological processes are *very* different 
 from everything else in the universe, 


 Yes.

  and therefore very special


 Yes. 

  but then denying that there is any relevant difference between biology 
 (the sole source of teleology and reason) and *everything else in the 
 entire cosmos*. 


 I don't know if biology exists anyplace other than on the earth, if it 
 doesn't then 3 billion years ago something happened  on earth that was 
 different from anything else in the entire cosmos. I don't know if 
 intelligence and culture exists anywhere other than the earth but if it 
 doesn't then less that a million years ago something happened to a biped on 
 this planet that was different from anything else in biology here or 
 anywhere else. And in the last 50 years its become increasingly clear that 
 biology will not be the only source of teleology and reason for much longer.


I don't see that the fantasy of non-biological teleology has become any 
more realized than it was 50 years ago. Some may find our simulations 
slightly more endearing but I am not impressed that they differ in any way 
other than cosmetics and more extensive application of non-teleological 
processing. There is still no reason to believe that this very unusual 
thing that happened on Earth can be leapfrogged by theoretical assumptions.
 


  You haven't explained anything.


 In just my last post I did a better job at explaining something than I've 
 ever seen you do.


Congratulations, you have a very high opinion of yourself.
 


  Your ability to think and reason is nothing other than nature's poor 
 design. 


 Yes, if I was designed better I could reason better. Before long computers 
 will be designed better. 


By natural people who were designed by natural selection. 


  I'm not the one saying that biological systems have qualities that 
 inorganic systems cannot, you are.


 I'm saying they do not, I'm not saying they cannot.


We agree then. I only say that there may very well be an important reason 
why they do not which cannot be accessed by existing theory.
 


  But you are saying that the experiences of the more interesting 
 organisms can easily be produced in the pre-evolutionary stupidity of 
 chemistry or physics.


 Yes, if you put those inorganic parts together in the right way you could 
 make some very interesting things but Evolution never figured out how to do 
 it because of the flaws 


Evolution never figured out is like brick wall never dreamed of

inherent in the process which I explained in considerable detail in my last 
 post. Human designers don't have those limitations 


You aren't

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
 On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
 example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
 eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of salt and
 iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is no reason
 why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the reality
 that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic biologically
 active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there couldn't be
 inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily invested in
 the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or impossible, but
 that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take that rather
 odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important data.
 Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in the air
 shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide.

 I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an
 advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a
 gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such
 organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by
 weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no
 organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation
 consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the
 evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is
 the antithesis of life. Why, when there is an obvious and better
 explanation consistent with Occam's Razor?


 Hi Stathis,

 Humans are not organisms in Nature? Your statement is only true if they
 are not. How did this come to happen? Your thesis here requires that the
 existence of Humans with steel claws and with guns is, somehow, outside of
 the definition of organisms. How the heck does this happen

Everything that happens in nature is natural, that's one way of
looking at it. But there is a difference between things that develop
through mutation and natural selection and things that are designed.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment


On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:

On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:

Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of salt and
iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is no reason
why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the reality
that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic biologically
active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there couldn't be
inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily invested in
the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or impossible, but
that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take that rather
odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important data.
Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in the air
shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide.

I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an
advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a
gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such
organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by
weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no
organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation
consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the
evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is
the antithesis of life. Why, when there is an obvious and better
explanation consistent with Occam's Razor?


Hi Stathis,

 Humans are not organisms in Nature? Your statement is only true if they
are not. How did this come to happen? Your thesis here requires that the
existence of Humans with steel claws and with guns is, somehow, outside of
the definition of organisms. How the heck does this happen

Everything that happens in nature is natural, that's one way of
looking at it. But there is a difference between things that develop
through mutation and natural selection and things that are designed.


Hi Stathis,

What is the real difference? Any argument that we might make about 
things that are designed can easily be turned around and used as an 
argument for Intelligent Design of the universe itself. Nature is 
either an integrated and mutually consistent whole or it is not. Things 
evolve by natural processes or they do not. There is no middle ground 
here unless we are introducing an arbitrary preference for a particular 
definition: i.e. what ever is the product of mankind's peculiar 
processes in the cosmos is designed and what ever is not related to 
the particulars of Mankind's peculiarities is not designed. If we do 
that then we have to have a good reason.
So I am asking you. Why make that distinction? What is the 
difference that makes a difference?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment


On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but evolved systems, then 
they must have the same limitations as evolution itself, unless you can explain why they 
wouldn't.


More nothing buttery.  If people are just atoms they must have the same 
limitations as atoms.

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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment


On 9/30/2012 4:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:

On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:

Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of salt and
iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is no reason
why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the reality
that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic biologically
active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there couldn't be
inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily invested in
the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or impossible, but
that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take that rather
odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important data.
Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in the air
shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide.

I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an
advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a
gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such
organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by
weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no
organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation
consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the
evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is
the antithesis of life. Why, when there is an obvious and better
explanation consistent with Occam's Razor?


Hi Stathis,

 Humans are not organisms in Nature? Your statement is only true if they
are not. How did this come to happen? Your thesis here requires that the
existence of Humans with steel claws and with guns is, somehow, outside of
the definition of organisms. How the heck does this happen

Everything that happens in nature is natural, that's one way of
looking at it. But there is a difference between things that develop
through mutation and natural selection and things that are designed.


Hi Stathis,

What is the real difference? Any argument that we might make about things that are 
designed can easily be turned around and used as an argument for Intelligent Design 
of the universe itself. Nature is either an integrated and mutually consistent whole or 
it is not. Things evolve by natural processes or they do not. There is no middle 
ground here unless we are introducing an arbitrary preference for a particular 
definition: i.e. what ever is the product of mankind's peculiar processes in the cosmos 
is designed and what ever is not related to the particulars of Mankind's peculiarities 
is not designed. If we do that then we have to have a good reason.
So I am asking you. Why make that distinction? What is the difference that makes a 
difference?




The difference is that human designers have in mind some goal for their design, they can 
start from a clean sheet or modify and existing design, they can design, build and test 
things without making lots of copies.


Brent
Perfected obsolesence always surpasses the first realization of
a superior concept.
  --- Lawrence Pomeroy, The Grand Prix Car

--
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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment


On 9/30/2012 8:07 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/30/2012 4:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King 
stephe...@charter.net wrote:

On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg 
whatsons...@gmail.com

wrote:

Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually 
need to
eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of 
salt and
iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is 
no reason
why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the 
reality
that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic 
biologically
active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there 
couldn't be
inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily 
invested in
the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or 
impossible, but
that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take 
that rather
odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important 
data.
Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in 
the air

shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide.

I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an
advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a
gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such
organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by
weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no
organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation
consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the
evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is
the antithesis of life. Why, when there is an obvious and better
explanation consistent with Occam's Razor?


Hi Stathis,

 Humans are not organisms in Nature? Your statement is only 
true if they
are not. How did this come to happen? Your thesis here requires 
that the
existence of Humans with steel claws and with guns is, somehow, 
outside of

the definition of organisms. How the heck does this happen

Everything that happens in nature is natural, that's one way of
looking at it. But there is a difference between things that develop
through mutation and natural selection and things that are designed.


Hi Stathis,

What is the real difference? Any argument that we might make 
about things that are designed can easily be turned around and used 
as an argument for Intelligent Design of the universe itself. 
Nature is either an integrated and mutually consistent whole or it is 
not. Things evolve by natural processes or they do not. There is no 
middle ground here unless we are introducing an arbitrary preference 
for a particular definition: i.e. what ever is the product of 
mankind's peculiar processes in the cosmos is designed and what 
ever is not related to the particulars of Mankind's peculiarities is 
not designed. If we do that then we have to have a good reason.
So I am asking you. Why make that distinction? What is the 
difference that makes a difference?




The difference is that human designers have in mind some goal for 
their design, they can start from a clean sheet or modify and existing 
design, they can design, build and test things without making lots of 
copies.



How does your new remark answer my question? Are Humans somehow 
special? Are we not part of the integrate whole that is Nature?


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment


On 9/30/2012 5:29 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
So I am asking you. Why make that distinction? What is the difference that makes a 
difference?




The difference is that human designers have in mind some goal for their design, they 
can start from a clean sheet or modify and existing design, they can design, build and 
test things without making lots of copies.



How does your new remark answer my question? Are Humans somehow special? Are we not 
part of the integrate whole that is Nature?


Sure.  Humans are special.  Sparrows are special.  That doesn't mean humans designing 
something is an instance of evolving any more than a bird flying is an example of 
evolving.  Designing, flying, and evolving are different actions performed by different 
kinds of things.


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: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture