Re: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence ofcomputers
Hi Craig Weinberg I agree with what you say, but there's no need to humanize the coffee filters nor humanize intelligence or consciousness. I'm not talking here about IQ. My point (speaking here as Leibniz) is that nature down to the lowliest beings (a grain of sand) has intelligence of some sort. Nature is alive, and life is intelligence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 13:53:48 Subject: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence ofcomputers On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:42:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to Leibniz's metaphysics, even rocks. But these bare naked monads are essentially in deep, drugged sleep and darkness, or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before Freud and Jung. I believe that there is an experience on the micro-level of what the coffee filter is made of - molecules held together as fibers maybe, bit I don't think that it knows or cares about filtering. It's like if you write the letters A and B on a piece of paper - I think there is an experience there on the molecular level, of adhesion, evaporation, maybe other interesting things we will never know, but I don't think that the letter A knows that there is a letter B there. Do you? I don't think the letters have a consciousness because they aren't actually beings, the patterns which they embody to us are in our experience, not independent beings. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 09:54:53 Subject: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in it? Craig On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi I was wrong. According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, to make choices on its own (without outside help)-- a computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go into another bin. It does it all on its own, using an if statement. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 11/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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/-/4uRvNZH9oIsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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/-/Ewl6J7rU8jgJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Monads and the Diophantine equantions.
Hi Stephen P. King Monads are as you say, but only potentially. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 13:07:50 Subject: Re: Monads and the Diophantine equantions. On 11/15/2012 11:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal No connection, I was just looking at the meaning of the Diophantine equations. Their meanings as categories possibly. Ie, can numbers be categorized by the D eqns they fit ? If some numbers fit these equations , do they have some particular meaning (are categories) ? Note also that the monads are individuals and so could fit some of the D eqns. Then if the eqns have some meanings or categories , that might be the Dear Roger, Do you conceptualize Monads as primitive substances or actions? -- 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: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
Hi Russell Standish OK. So something happened and the physical universe expanded out of that. Or there were even a series of such explosions, which is Penrose's contention. Fine, as long as they explain the facts. The more interesting question is how the physical universe could have been created out of the nonphysical, which I take to be intelligence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 15:55:10 Subject: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:20:14AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: Of course, but the big bang is not the same thing as the beginning of the universe. Also, the cosmic microwave background, which is the direct observational evidence of the big bang comes from the last scattering, when electrons and nuclei combined for the last time into atomic matter and stayed that way. Red shift surveys can only give information about the age of the last scattering, and even then, interpreting it as a certain number of years can only occur within a specific model of the universe - the Friedmann model is often used because of its simplicity - even though we now know the universe evolved quite differently from the Friedmann model due to things like dark energy, which introduces far too much uncertainty to claim that the inverse of an accurate Hubble constant is the age of the universe The big bang theory gives an account of the evolution of the universe from a quark-gluon soup to the last scattering, and gives quite a good account of the 300,000 years before the last scattering. Accounts of what happened prior to the quark-gluon plasma are highly speculative, including inflation theory, and are likely to be revised as science progresses. In some of those speculations, the actual beginning of the universe occurred much earlier, or in the infinite past. Actually, according to Wikipedia: Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the International Astronomical Union [4] presently use age of the universe to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current observable universe. Lambda-CDM is apparently the most widely accepted model of how the universe expanded since the big bang. I didn't realise the IAU has defined an age of the universe, but its anything but. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Emergence of Properties
Hi Stephen P. King How is the agreement of many minds known if they are all solipsists ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 16:46:15 Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ? Hi Roger, In my proposed definitions, must only follows if and only if there is no accessible possible world where a contraindication of the agreement occurs. Put more simply, a statement is true iff there is no knowable contradiction of the statement. The possible existence of an unknowable contradiction to the truth of a statement acts to support the idea of fallibility. And must unicorns exist because I believe that they do ? The existence or non-existence is not contingent on anything, especially the belief of one person. Your question should be phrased as: Must unicorns be a physical creature because of my belief in such? The answer might be yes is there is some means by which your belief has the causal power to generate a physical being. -- 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: Re: (mathematical) solipsism
Hi Stephen P. King Mind has no properties other than being nonphysical, so no problem. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 16:51:03 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 11/15/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Mind is the fundamental nonphysical primitive out of which all physical things were created and which governs them. Dear Roger, That implies a subtle contradiction as the postulation of mind as primitive implies that its property of being a mind is somehow necessary and sufficient without any means that selects the properties from the class of all possible properties. This is the fundamental problem with the theory of innate properties. It seems to me that such thinking is just an appeal to authority and has no explanatory power. -- 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: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
Hi Stephen, Hogan appears to be a total skeptic. What can I say ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 10:45:18 Subject: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion Hi Stephen P. King He's got his work cut out for him, not so much as casting doubt on other's theories, but in explaining all of the data obtained with alternate theorie. In which case, the Big Bang simply happened another way than that taught. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 06:41:21 Subject: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. -- 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: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence ofcomputers
On Friday, November 16, 2012 5:55:41 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree with what you say, but there's no need to humanize the coffee filters nor humanize intelligence or consciousness. I'm not talking here about IQ. My point (speaking here as Leibniz) is that nature down to the lowliest beings (a grain of sand) has intelligence of some sort. Nature is alive, and life is intelligence. My point though is just because we put fibers into a mold or dots on a page into a form we can recognize doesn't mean that we have created new life and intelligence. There is a difference between assembling something from tiny spatial-object parts and something reproducing itself from teleological-experiential wholes. A mannequin is not a person. The plaster and steel the mannequin is made of may certainly have a quality of experience, and although it is hard to speculate on exactly what kinds of experiences those are or what level of microcosm or macrocosm they are associated with, one thing that I am quite certain of is that the plaster and steel mannequin is not having the experience of a human person, no matter how convincing of a mannequin it looks to us to be. The same goes for cartoons, drawings, photos, movies..those things aren't alive or intelligent, but they are made of things which, on some level, are capable of sense participation. Computers are just a more pronounced example. As they improve they may be more convincing imitations of our human intelligence, but that quality of awareness is only a recorded reflection of our own, it is not being generated by nature directly and it is neither alive nor intelligent. Craig [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] javascript: 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-11-15, 13:53:48 *Subject:* Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence ofcomputers On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:42:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to Leibniz's metaphysics, even rocks. But these bare naked monads are essentially in deep, drugged sleep and darkness, or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before Freud and Jung. I believe that there is an experience on the micro-level of what the coffee filter is made of - molecules held together as fibers maybe, bit I don't think that it knows or cares about filtering. It's like if you write the letters A and B on a piece of paper - I think there is an experience there on the molecular level, of adhesion, evaporation, maybe other interesting things we will never know, but I don't think that the letter A knows that there is a letter B there. Do you? I don't think the letters have a consciousness because they aren't actually beings, the patterns which they embody to us are in our experience, not independent beings. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-11-12, 09:54:53 *Subject:* Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in it? Craig On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi I was wrong. According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, to make choices on its own (without outside help)-- a computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go into another bin. It does it all on its own, using an if statement. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 11/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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/-/4uRvNZH9oIsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/16/2012 6:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King How is the agreement of many minds known if they are all solipsists ? Hi Roger, The agreement is known by the appearance of a common world. It is the manifestation of their mutual truth. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-11-15, 16:46:15 *Subject:* Re: Emergence of Properties On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ? Hi Roger, In my proposed definitions, must only follows if and only if there is no accessible possible world where a contraindication of the agreement occurs. Put more simply, a statement is true iff there is no knowable contradiction of the statement. The possible existence of an unknowable contradiction to the truth of a statement acts to support the idea of fallibility. And must unicorns exist because I believe that they do ? The existence or non-existence is not contingent on anything, especially the belief of one person. Your question should be phrased as: Must unicorns be a physical creature because of my belief in such? The answer might be yes is there is some means by which your belief has the causal power to generate a physical being. -- 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: Re: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligenceofcomputers
Hi Craig Weinberg When I say that all bodies live, I failed to state that they must be monads, which means that that they must be of one part. I don't think mannekins would qualify, nor cartoons, which aren't even bodies. Of one part I think means that there is something holding the thing (then a substance) together in some way, like life. Or an electromagnetic, biological, or chemical field. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-16, 07:16:17 Subject: Re: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligenceofcomputers On Friday, November 16, 2012 5:55:41 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree with what you say, but there's no need to humanize the coffee filters nor humanize intelligence or consciousness. I'm not talking here about IQ. My point (speaking here as Leibniz) is that nature down to the lowliest beings (a grain of sand) has intelligence of some sort. Nature is alive, and life is intelligence. My point though is just because we put fibers into a mold or dots on a page into a form we can recognize doesn't mean that we have created new life and intelligence. There is a difference between assembling something from tiny spatial-object parts and something reproducing itself from teleological-experiential wholes. A mannequin is not a person. The plaster and steel the mannequin is made of may certainly have a quality of experience, and although it is hard to speculate on exactly what kinds of experiences those are or what level of microcosm or macrocosm they are associated with, one thing that I am quite certain of is that the plaster and steel mannequin is not having the experience of a human person, no matter how convincing of a mannequin it looks to us to be. The same goes for cartoons, drawings, photos, movies..those things aren't alive or intelligent, but they are made of things which, on some level, are capable of sense participation. Computers are just a more pronounced example. As they improve they may be more convincing imitations of our human intelligence, but that quality of awareness is only a recorded reflection of our own, it is not being generated by nature directly and it is neither alive nor intelligent. Craig [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 13:53:48 Subject: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence ofcomputers On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:42:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to Leibniz's metaphysics, even rocks. But these bare naked monads are essentially in deep, drugged sleep and darkness, or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before Freud and Jung. I believe that there is an experience on the micro-level of what the coffee filter is made of - molecules held together as fibers maybe, bit I don't think that it knows or cares about filtering. It's like if you write the letters A and B on a piece of paper - I think there is an experience there on the molecular level, of adhesion, evaporation, maybe other interesting things we will never know, but I don't think that the letter A knows that there is a letter B there. Do you? I don't think the letters have a consciousness because they aren't actually beings, the patterns which they embody to us are in our experience, not independent beings. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 09:54:53 Subject: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in it? Craig On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi I was wrong. According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, to make choices on its own (without outside help)-- a computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go into another bin. It does it all on its own, using an if statement. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 11/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially
Re: Re: Emergence of Properties
Hi Stephen P. King But how could one know if the others are telling the truth ? The surest test could only be a Turing Test. Plus I have another difficulty with solipsim. If perception must proceed existence, then one could never be stabbed in the back. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-16, 07:25:39 Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties On 11/16/2012 6:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King How is the agreement of many minds known if they are all solipsists ? Hi Roger, The agreement is known by the appearance of a common world. It is the manifestation of their mutual truth. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 16:46:15 Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ? Hi Roger, In my proposed definitions, must only follows if and only if there is no accessible possible world where a contraindication of the agreement occurs. Put more simply, a statement is true iff there is no knowable contradiction of the statement. The possible existence of an unknowable contradiction to the truth of a statement acts to support the idea of fallibility. And must unicorns exist because I believe that they do ? The existence or non-existence is not contingent on anything, especially the belief of one person. Your question should be phrased as: Must unicorns be a physical creature because of my belief in such? The answer might be yes is there is some means by which your belief has the causal power to generate a physical being. -- 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: Against Mechanism
On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:27, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If he's a devout Muslim he believes he will go to heaven with 77 virgins when he pushes that button, but as I said I really don't care what he believes will happen, I care about what will happen. That was my point. What happen does not depend on the beliefs. Then why in the name of all that's holy do you keep going on and on about what the man expects to happen? What the Helsinki man expects to happen depends entirely on the particular man involved. The Muslim will be very surprised after he pushes the button when he doesn't see 77 virgins that he was so certain he would see. Not if he bet on comp, which is part of the protocol. I would not be at all surprised to see what I see after I push the button. And even though you make the exact same predictions I do nevertheless you say you would be surprised to see what you see after you push the button, apparently you would be surprised to find out that you were correct. You keep looking at this backward and trying to establish a chain of identity from the present to the future Yes, the question is about a prediction. but that's never going to work, you've got to look from the present to the past. Yes, for confirming or infirming the prediction, or for having evidences for a next prediction. I know for certain that I am the John Clark of yesterday because I remember being him; Yes, and that is why you makes sense after the duplication, and why we have to interview the two copies. if the Many Worlds theory is true then I'm not the only one who was John Clark of yesterday and some of them are now experiencing things that the John Clark of yesterday would say were astronomically (but not infinitely) unlikely, So you agree there is a probability of some sort involved. some are now experiencing vastly different things than I am now, but that doesn't make me or them any less the John Clark of yesterday. I am the John Clark of yesterday from my viewpoint, and the John Clark who was just elected Pope is the John Clark of yesterday from his viewpoint, and the John Clark who decided to become a rodeo clown is the John Clark of yesterday from his viewpoint. As for the John Clark of yesterday himself he has no voice in any of this because he is no longer around. And I know nothing for certain about the John Clark of tomorrow, I don't even know if he will exist. Keep in mind the theoretical protocol. he is not the only Helsinki man because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED, and that means the 1P view has been duplicated too As seen from the 3-views on the 1-views. But not as seen by the 1- views. Who's 1-views? Find somebody after the experiment who complains my view was not duplicated! I dare you, show me! Both, from their 1-views. Both feel to be in once city, never both, and the question is about what they will feel. and that means the 1P view from the 1P view has been duplicated too, and that means the 1P view from the 1P view from the 1P view has been duplicated too As seen each time from some 3-view, but that is not what is asked. So even after a infinity of iterations you still think there has not been enough peeing and you can still factor out a p. Well where the hell is it? Each copies gives rise to one. There is nothing in those diaries, nothing about the bodies and no third party description that I failed to predict. Indeed, but you fail to predict the first party description Using a word like the implies there is only one first party description and of course that is untrue because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. No, each 1-view remains one and integral. After an an iteration of the WM-duplication each have a precise history like WWWMWMMWWMMWWW. The majority, when they do a statistical study can predict P = 1/2. If they count themselves they will find that the proportion W/M gives the coefficient of Newton's binomial, etc. And before you start peeing I should tell you that I don't know what a 3p of a 1p is, much less a future 3p of a 1p. It is easy. We have many people, all pretending (rightly) to be John Clark, and all having a memory of a precise definite history like the one above. A 3p on the 1p is what happens when we ascribe a consciousness to others, and this poses no problems, as we assume comp and the correctness of the level, and no bugs, so all such questions are easy to answer. like if by some magic, you are all the copies at once, which would contradict comp. I don't care if it contradicts comp or not, I'm not its advocate Yes, you are. This is clear from your post to others. and apparently know next to nothing about it. You keep telling me that comp implies all sorts of loony screwy things stuff that is clearly untrue, Only for you. Try to
Re: the God hypothesis
On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:52, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno, There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind, because mind is non-existent (not created). There are a lot of infinite regress in arithmetic. I am not sure how you related this with created and uncreated. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34 Subject: Re: the God hypothesis On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Roger Clough, Actually the action of mathematical physics gives everything the reason to live. As Hawking says, there is no need for god if you got quantum gravity. I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness, that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental possibilities, according to Leibniz... But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be. Bruno Richard Ruquist On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the God hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. Hi Roger, The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be perfectly lined up. ... Right. That's Platonia. Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- 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. -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this
Re: Monads and the Diophantine equantions.
On 15 Nov 2012, at 17:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal No connection, I was just looking at the meaning of the Diophantine equations. Their meanings as categories possibly. Ie, can numbers be categorized by the D eqns they fit ? If some numbers fit these equations , do they have some particular meaning (are categories) ? Note also that the monads are individuals and so could fit some of the D eqns. Then if the eqns have some meanings or categories , that might be the the ? What you say is a big vague. There is nothing special about the diophantine equation, I could have use LISP programs. The reasoning, and eventually the physical reality, and consciousness is invariant for the choice of the ontology, once it is Turing universal. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 07:17:08 Subject: Re: On uniqueness On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:09, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, and keep in mind that there may be more than one theory that gives the same results in the form of data. This plays the key role. That all data structuring admit infinities of theories, like each state of mind can be associate to infinities of machines. So in this world, the truth must lie in the data, which is unique, and not the theory, which may not be unique. The inner truth, yes. But the outer truth it is more complex, not to say on the fringe of the inconceivable. In this world, data is king. Hmm... It is a question of taste, but personally I would say that the interpreter of the data is more fundamental. Data are usually very contingent, and sometimes they can hide reality more than enlightening. Many data can put shadows and distort the view, and they can also be biased. Data are important, sure. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-02, 13:34:22 Subject: Re: Self-ascription and Perfect Model Model On 02 Nov 2012, at 10:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno, Could it not be that there is nothing especially sacred about the natural numbers, that these are, as Hobbes put it regarding words, but counterfeit tokens ? Numbers, with + and * laws, is mainly the same things than digital machines, and the laws making them working. And the real controlling force which uses them is information theory ? That is to say, intelligence. Here you are far too quick. I can make sense, because I have some favorable imagination. As I said, information theory is a tiny part of computer science. It exploits the duality between immune/simple set, where the self-reference logic exploits the duality creative/ productive set. The two dualities plays some r?e, but the creative/ productive set duality (the theory of universal machine) is much more rich. The mathematical notion of information still disallows meaning and person. It is more used for communication of signals, treatment of noise, compression of data, etc. You will also have the problem between choosing classical information or quantum information, and how to relate them, etc. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/2/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-01, 06:09:50 Subject: Re: Self-ascription and Perfect Model Model On 30.10.2012 16:25 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 30 Oct 2012, at 12:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... You talk for example about integers as a framework for everything. Fine. Yet, I would like to understand how mankind through it development has invented integers. How comp would help to answer this? Comp might not been able to answer that, in any better way than, say, evolution theory. Numbers are important in nature, as everything is born from them, and to survive with bigger chance, the universal numbers, us in particular, have to be able to recognize them, and manipulate them accordingly. Comp is not a theory aimed at explaining everything directly. It is just, at the start, an hypothesis in philosophy of mind, and then it appears that it reduces the mind- body problem to an explanation of quanta and qualia from arithmetic/computer science. Its main value in the human science, is, imo, that he forces us to be more modest, and more aware that we know about nothing, if only because we have wrongly separate the human science (including theology, afterlife, metaphysics) and the exact sciences. Comp provides a way to reunite them. Comp can be seen as an abstract corpus callosum making a bridge between the formal and the
Re: In the beginning were the numbers
On 15 Nov 2012, at 17:18, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno,
Perhaps these problems below fade away if you think
of numbers in this way:
In the beginning were the numbers
and the numbers were with Mind and
the numbers were Mind.
I can accept this a short poetical sum up. But strictly speaking mind
is what a universal numbers can do relatively to other minds. To
identify mind and number is too crude. Mind is more in the person
dreams supported by enough complex number relations. Keep in mind I am
working with the assumption that the brain function like a digitalm
machine, at some level.
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-01, 14:21:55
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a
concrete robust physical universe.
?
Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I
explicitly do assume a primitive physical reality.
In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum.
Dear Bruno,
I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you
still didn't understand... From: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf
...what if we don’t grant a concrete robust physical universe?
Actually the 8th present step will explain
that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the
notion of concrete and
existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power.
It will follow that a much
weaker and usual form of Ockham’s razor can be used to conclude that
not only physics has
been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that
‘‘matter’’ has been
ontologically reduced to ‘‘mind’’ where mind is defined as the
object study of fundamental
machine psychology.
My claim is that neither physical worlds nor numbers (or any
other object that must supervene on mind) can be ontologically
primitive. Both must emerge from a neutral ground that is neither
and has no particular properties.
[SPK] He goes on to argue that Occam's razor would demand that we
reject the very idea of the existence of physical worlds
Only of primitive physical worlds. And you did agree with this. I
just prove this from comp. That's the originality. A bit of
metaphysics is made into a theorem in a theory (comp).
Can we agree that physical worlds emerge somehow from sharable
aspects of multiple sheaves of computations?
[SPK] given that he can 'show' how they can be reconstructed or
derived from irreducible - and thus ontologically primitive
- Arithmetic 'objects' {0, 1, +, *} that are operating somehow
in an atemporal way. We should be able to make the argument run
without ever appealing to a Platonic realm or any kind of
'realism'. In my thinking, if arithmetic is powerful enough to be
a TOE and run the TOE to generate our world, then that power
should be obvious. My problem is that it looks tooo much like the
'explanation' of creation that we find in mythology, whether it is
the Ptah of ancient Egypt or the egg of Pangu or whatever other
myth one might like. What makes an explanation framed in the
sophisticated and formal language of modal logic any different?
I use the self-reference logic, for obvious reason. Again, this
entails the sue of some modal logics, due to a *theorem* by
Solovay. All correct machine whose beliefs extend RA obeys to G and
G*. There is no choice in the matter.
That is not changed or involved by my argument.
[SPK] I agree 10% with your point about 'miracles'. I
am very suspicions of special explanations' or 'natural
conspiracies'. (This comes from my upbringing as a Bible-
believing Fundamentalist and eventual rejection of that
literalist mental straight-jacket.) As I see things, any condition
or situation that can be used to 'explain' some other conceptually
difficult condition or situation should be either universal in
that they apply anywhere and anytime
But even in your theory anywhere and anytime must be defined by
something more primitive, given that you agree that physics cannot
be the fundamental theory, given that the physical reality is not
primitive.
The concepts of where and when (positions in a space-time)
would seem to be rendered meaningless if there is no space-time (or
observers/measurements to define it), no? OH, BTW, I don't think
that we disagree that physics cannot be the fundamental theory.
Physics requires measurements/observations to be meaningful. Where I
agree with you is in your considerations of 1p and observer
indeterminacy. Where you and I disagree is on the question of
resources. Resources are required for computations to
Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/16/2012 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King But how could one know if the others are telling the truth ? Umm, I only assume the barest appearance of interactions. All of this is fully consistent with Leibniz' monadology. Monads have no windows and do not exchange substances. All interactions are only mutual synchronizations of their percepts. The surest test could only be a Turing Test. I am not sure how that is related... Plus I have another difficulty with solipsim. If perception must proceed existence, then one could never be stabbed in the back. Existence must be primitive ontologically, or else how are properties to be extracted from it by perception? There are no knives (or spoons), only phenomena of mutual agreements. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-11-16, 07:25:39 *Subject:* Re: Emergence of Properties On 11/16/2012 6:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King How is the agreement of many minds known if they are all solipsists ? Hi Roger, The agreement is known by the appearance of a common world. It is the manifestation of their mutual truth. -- 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: Re: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligenceofcomputers
On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:42:24 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg When I say that all bodies live, I failed to state that they must be monads, which means that that they must be of one part. I don't think mannekins would qualify, nor cartoons, which aren't even bodies. Of one part I think means that there is something holding the thing (then a substance) together in some way, like life. Or an electromagnetic, biological, or chemical field. But mannequins are held together by chemical and electromagnetic fields. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-11-16, 07:16:17 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligenceofcomputers On Friday, November 16, 2012 5:55:41 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree with what you say, but there's no need to humanize the coffee filters nor humanize intelligence or consciousness. I'm not talking here about IQ. My point (speaking here as Leibniz) is that nature down to the lowliest beings (a grain of sand) has intelligence of some sort. Nature is alive, and life is intelligence. My point though is just because we put fibers into a mold or dots on a page into a form we can recognize doesn't mean that we have created new life and intelligence. There is a difference between assembling something from tiny spatial-object parts and something reproducing itself from teleological-experiential wholes. A mannequin is not a person. The plaster and steel the mannequin is made of may certainly have a quality of experience, and although it is hard to speculate on exactly what kinds of experiences those are or what level of microcosm or macrocosm they are associated with, one thing that I am quite certain of is that the plaster and steel mannequin is not having the experience of a human person, no matter how convincing of a mannequin it looks to us to be. The same goes for cartoons, drawings, photos, movies..those things aren't alive or intelligent, but they are made of things which, on some level, are capable of sense participation. Computers are just a more pronounced example. As they improve they may be more convincing imitations of our human intelligence, but that quality of awareness is only a recorded reflection of our own, it is not being generated by nature directly and it is neither alive nor intelligent. Craig [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-11-15, 13:53:48 *Subject:* Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence ofcomputers On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:42:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to Leibniz's metaphysics, even rocks. But these bare naked monads are essentially in deep, drugged sleep and darkness, or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before Freud and Jung. I believe that there is an experience on the micro-level of what the coffee filter is made of - molecules held together as fibers maybe, bit I don't think that it knows or cares about filtering. It's like if you write the letters A and B on a piece of paper - I think there is an experience there on the molecular level, of adhesion, evaporation, maybe other interesting things we will never know, but I don't think that the letter A knows that there is a letter B there. Do you? I don't think the letters have a consciousness because they aren't actually beings, the patterns which they embody to us are in our experience, not independent beings. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-11-12, 09:54:53 *Subject:* Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in it? Craig On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi I was wrong. According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, to make choices on its own (without outside help)-- a computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a
Re: Against Mechanism
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes, the question is about a prediction. And my question is why is the question about prediction rather than remembering which would make far more sense. Using prediction to establish a chain of custody for your personal identity works about as well as pushing on a string. you've got to use memory and look from the present to the past, give it a try, try pulling that string. And I know nothing for certain about the John Clark of tomorrow, I don't even know if he will exist. Keep in mind the theoretical protocol. It is a theoretical and practical and empirical fact that I will never know as much about the future John Clark as the past John Clark, it's why the arrow of time has a direction. By asking them where they feel to be after opening the reconstitution box, after pushing the button in Helsinki. And them will answer I feel like I'm only in Washington AND I feel like I'm only in Moscow. I've got to say that your comments like the above make me want to pull my hair out. Yes you say, I understand that I the Helsinki man am now the Moscow man AND the Washington man. No, from the 1p, after pushing the button and opening the box, you *feel*[...] Who feels? Bruno Marchal admitted that both the Washington and the Moscow man are you, so who is you in the above? it can't be someone experiencing Helsinki because nobody is anymore. to be only the M man, or the W man. This is not in contraidction with the fact that they both feel to have been the Hlsinki man. But pronouns like you and I can't be tossed around and expect to be clear. Yes you say, I understand that I have been duplicated. Yes you say I understand that now I was one but now I am TWO. Intellectually. In the 3p view, but you, whoever you can be after pushing the button You being the Washington man AND the Moscow man. will feel to be only one of the copy. Yes the Washington man will and yes the Moscow man will, in other words yes you will . You say you understand all that, and then you ask but which ONE am I?. AHR! Because it is simple to understand that you[...] STOP HIDING BEHIND PRONOUNS! Who the hell is you?? he will not longer be singular, but both copies will still feel singular, and the question was about that feeling. If Bruno doesn't like the answer then Bruno should ask the question without using pronouns and without peeing. I repeat the precise question, asked to the H man, when he is still in Helsinki, before pushing the button. After he pushes that button the probability that the guy who is still experiencing Helsinki will see Washington or Moscow or Helsinki or anything else is zero because there is no longer a guy who is experiencing Helsinki. From the 1p view, he will never feel the presence of a split. I know. Good. you disagreed with this some times ago. BULLSHIT! In other words the environment causes a change in him and the two exact copies of the Helsinki man are not exact anymore and so become separate people You can put it that way, I know. but the indeterminacy comes from the duplication, follow by the differentiation. This is used in all the steps. I know, and that's exactly why its pointless of me to read all the steps. 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: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:40:10AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote: The more interesting question is how the physical universe could have been created out of the nonphysical, which I take to be intelligence. There are many accounts of how something (the universe) could have arisen from nothing without the need of a prior intelligence. See some of Vic Stenger's book, or my book Theory of Nothing. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
Reminds me of something I heard once The best joke in the universe is that science will win every battle but religion won the war before it even began. On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's *Kicking the Sacred Cow*http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,... Brent Hi Brent, I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until orthodoxy is overthrown. So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, contrarian theory? Brent Of course not! What an absurd statement! Some modicum of common sense must prevail. Hogan's discussions are clear and even handed and point out many examples of how innovative thinking is often suppressed by activities that would be criminal if they occurred in an open court. -- 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. -- 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.
