Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge
On 12/15/2012 9:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: If you have a group of people getting rich while other people are in bondage to them and stay poor, that presents a problem for social mobility - which is being realized now as the US has fallen beneath several other countries in social mobility. Hi, OK, we need a theory of social mobility that makes accurate predictions. Got one? Could we say that the fact that the US has fallen in its measure of social mobility tell us something about the failure of some current policies or combination as having some causal effect of that fall in ranking? Sure. Two obvious ones. Reducing income and estate taxes and making students pay more for higher education. When economic mobility was greatest the top marginal tax rate was 90% and the G.I. bill was sending people through college. 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- 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 . 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: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
On 06 Dec 2012, at 18:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear. Bruno Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: p Bp Bp p Bp Dt Bp Dt p See sane04 for more detail. Bp is the arithmetical formula beweisbar of Göel 1931, p is an arbitrary Sigma_1 sentences. In fact it is 4 + 4*infinity, as you have also all B^n p + D^m t with n m. This gives a graded set of quantum logics. And they all have different color fro different machines, that is, the logic of those points of view are the same for all correct machines, but their explicit content can be completely different. 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 14 Dec 2012, at 22:44, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 16:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi- multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Bruno, I presume here you mean that CTM predicts many dreams a priori. OK. Many dreams, and the feeling to belong to only one dream/reality. Dear Bruno, You still do not see that to 'make sense' (yes, Craig's term!) of what you are saying, we have to take a complementary view. On one hand we have the imaginary god's view where All is One, With the CTM, arithmetic is enough. I don't think it is imaginary. and on the other hand we have the finite observer's actual view of there are many that I can see. That is what is made precise in the TOE *derived* from the CTM. Is the projection to one SWI universe and/or multiple MWI universes also predicted a priori? Yes. From the first person perspective. It predicts also the trace of the many (dreams/realities/worlds) once we look below our comp substitution level. The projection is no magic: it is like in the Moscow/Washington duplication. Once the copies open the reconstitution boxes, they can only observe Moscow OR Washington---exclusive OR. My concern is that consciousness is predicted at the many dreams stage before projection and that consciousness could decide (a risky term) on a single SWI physical universe with quantum probability. Well, CTM predicts this, but with the CTM probabilities, which are not yet well computed. If they differ from the QM probabilities, this would make CTM in difficulties. Does not this cry out for a discussion of the differences between probabilities and actualities? Not just a discussion, but an entire mathematical treatment, which has been done. In other words, the realm of many dreams contains all possible eigenfunctions at various amplitudes. But in my view, if all eigenfunctions become real in different physical worlds, the amplitude information is lost despite Deutsch's measure argument. That is, amplitude information is only conserved as frequency of events in a single physical world integrated over many trials. For Deutsch's argument to be correct the same many worlds eigenfunctions must exist in every universe of the multiverse, which in my mind makes the MWI multiverse an illusion. The many-worlds eigenfunctions can be addressed with the frequency operator of Graham, Preskill, and are indeed the same in all universe, even in the Harry Potter universe. Are not Harry Potter properties, properties that are mutually inconsistent? Not necessarily. QM is invariant in the multiverse. What does this mean, exactly? That the SWE and the Born rules applies everywhere, even in the Harry Potter universes, where it seems to not apply. Even if I find myself in a Harry Potter universe where I saw a billions particle in the 1/sqrt(2)(up + down) all the time being up, I have to bet on 1/2 for the next one. One thing that I would like to point out. We should not assume 'perfect information' of the ensemble of universes! Statistics are often interpreted as if the sample is a perfect representation of the ensemble. I see this as assuming a 'god's eye view' of all of the members of the ensemble that can: 1) simultaneously access all of the members and 2) compare them to each other instantly. This idea is a complete fantasy! Not in the CTM where you can use the math to make it precise. Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend of the choice of basis and framing. Prove? This is contrary to what Everett said, and I have try to contradict him on this, eventually he is right. Deustch tought like you but has eventually change its mind. There are no prefer basis, and with the CTM there are not even a prefer ontological theory. The main message of QM, how ever you may wish to interpret it is that there does not exist a preferred basis. That's my point. Especially without collapse. There are very strong number theoretic arguments that the every idea of a relative measure cannot exist in the absence of the selection of a
Re: Against Mechanism
On 15 Dec 2012, at 04:25, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 6:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter and it sends him to Washington. That Bruno, Bruno_w goes back to Helsinki, gets in the transporter again and it sends him to Moscow. That Bruno_wm goes back to Helsinki and repeats this process many times. Eventually Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm concludes that the transporter seems to be random and just sends him to Washington or Moscow at random with probability 1/2. This is hailed as a great discovery...in Copenhagen. But in Washington (state) near the upper reached of Puget Sound there is a dislike of random things and a general feeling that randomness can never be a property of the world, but only a quantification of ignorance. So there a different view of Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm's experiment is that every time he pushed the button two whole universes were created, separated by more than the Hubble radius, and in one Bruno went to Bruno_w and in the other he went to Bruno_m. And so there was no probability involved, exactly the same thing happened every time. It only seemed like probability and randomness. Some people thought this was a little extravagant and asked how was energy conserved and how could this theory be tested. But they were silenced by being told the theory predicted exactly the same things as the probability theory without probabilities, so it must be right. -- Hi, Great post! I would like to know how the sequence wmwwmwmmmww...mwm is recorded and passed along. There is a tacit assumption of a book keeper at infinity' here! No, each Bruno takes his notebook with him which get transported also and he just writes down where he arrived before heading back to Helsinki. Brent -- Hi Brent, OK, so the notebook gets copy and pasted too? ?? It is the only difference between 1p and 3p used in the UDA. For the 3p the diary are outside the teleportation boxes, and for the 1p, the diary are inside, and thus gets copy and pasted too. Bruno -- 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 . 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23 Subject: Re: truth vs reality On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each
Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion
On 14 Dec 2012, at 16:38, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/13/2012 2:48 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a coherent 'one truth'. Perhaps the one truth is that there are many possible inconsistent truths, but only one set of consistent truths for each of us, or for each universe, whatever.(;) Dear Richard, I agree! How these truths are woven together is of considerable interest, as such is that ToE's attempt. If different truth can be woven together, it means you bet on a unique truth capable of doing that. That is what happen in the TOE derived from comp. There is a unique truth: arithmetical truth, which gives rise to the many dreams, each containing the 8 incarnations of the possible points of view on each of those truth. Bruno How do the 8 incarnations incorporate the 3 logics: X, Z and S4g? Z is the logic of Bp Dt X is the logic of Bp Dt p S4Grz is the logic of Bp p Z and X split on the G/G* difference, and to get matter you need to restrict the arithmetical translation on the UD, that is the Sigma_1 sentences. More on this asap (and probably on FOAR). Bruno -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: life is teleological
Hi Roger, Man has no purpose (wise or foolish, it doesn't matter) in life ? He has evolved, hasn't he ? So man is at least one example of purpose driving or enhancing evolution. Purpose is a human construct. DNA encodes the developmental process (or algorithm) for our brain. This developmental process then takes place in an environment inhabited by other humans and a lot of other stuff. The directives encoded in DNA allow the brain to adapt to this environment. So the brain is encoded with a preference to avoid pain and seek pleasure. The way that experiences are classified as painful or pleasurable is fine-tuned by aeons of evolution. The homo sapiens occupies a very specialised evolutionary niche, in which it relies in the superior pattern-matching and future state-predicting capabilities of its gigantic brain. So in a way, the homo sapiens niche is that of being capable of adapting faster and better to new situations. This requires a level of neural sophistication that is unmatched by any other species we've seen so far. This sophistication includes complex constructs like purpose. You're right in that, in a way, we have now transcended evolution. We developed medical technology that allows us to keep members of our species alive when otherwise they would have died (I would have been dead at 1 month old, killed by a closed stomach valve). We developed artificial insemination, allowing for reproduction where it would have been impossible. Our super-complex society keeps altering the mate selection process. Changes in sexual morality across time and space continuously affect the evolutionary process. We are now in the process of becoming full-blown designers, by way of genetic engineering and nano-tech. All this came as a by-product of the evolutionary drift towards our niche: gigantic brains and their complexities. Avoid pain and seek pleasure - now with super-super-super computers. Why do we avoid pain and seek pleasure? Why do we have gigantic brains? Because this configuration passed the evolutionary filter. It turns out that it's stable enough to persist for some time. Now back to evolution itself: it does not have any preference for niches. That's an anthropomorphizing mistake. We persist doing our thing, e-coli persist doing theirs. So finally my main point: evolution does not have a purpose, but it is capable of generating systems sufficiently complex to feel a sense of purpose. Have a great Sunday, Telmo. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-13, 11:30:40 *Subject:* Re: Re: life is teleological Hi Roger, To be purposeful you need a self or center of consciousness to desire that goal or purpose. The key word is desire. Stones don't desire. Ok, but what I'm saying is that purposefulness is not present in evolutionary processes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-12, 14:21:04 *Subject:* Re: life is teleological Hi Roger, Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what the word means. And the goal of life is to survive. So evolution is teleological. Sorry but I don't agree that life or evolution have a goal. That would be a bit like saying that the goal of gravity is to attract chunks of matter to each other. You could instead see life as a process and evolution as a filter: some stuff continues to exist, other stuff doesn't. We can develop narratives on why that is: successful replication, good adaption to a biological niche and so on. But these narratives are all in our minds, we ourselves looking at it from inside of the process, if you will. From the outside, we are just experiencing the stuff that persists or, in other words, that went through the evolutionary filter at this point in time. In other words, life is intelligent. Suppose I postulate that the goal of stars is to emit light. Are they intelligent? If not why? What's the difference? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-11, 16:03:57 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Yes, I sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it. in EP this
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
Hi Craig Weinberg I believe that life and consciousness and intelligence are inseparable because none can act without the others being involved. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-14, 19:37:50 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows On Friday, December 14, 2012 7:19:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what I feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom. Of course that's possible. In fact it is a common psychotic delusion. Indeed, we are complex and have many competing aspects of our self with different agendas. The reason why it doesn't make sense however, is why would any process exist which creates an epiphenomenal person such as you. By extension, that is the problem with mechanism and functionalism as well. If you have a perfectly good computer which operates a robot navigating a physical world whose purpose is to survive and reproduce, what would be the advantage of generating an internal representation delusion to some made up 'person' program when the computer is already controlling the robot perfectly well. It would be like installing an chip inside of your computer to simulate an impressionist painter who actually paints tiny paintings for a made up audience of puppets to think that they are looking at. Even then, you still have the Explanatory Gap/homunculus problem. You still ARE NO CLOSER to closing the gap as now you have an interior 'model' which has no mechanism for perception. You have just moved the Cartesian Theater inside of biochemistry, but it still explains nothing about how you get from endogenous light to endogenous eyes which see images through biophotons rather than are simply informed of their quantitative significance directly and digitally. You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would have been no reason for consciousness to have evolved. Consciousness evolved from awareness, not intelligence. Awareness did not evolve. Evolution is a feature of experience, which is the consequence of awareness. Intelligent behavior is more or less meaningless. It's a outsider's judgment on some observed activity where he projects his own standards of sense and motive onto some context he may or may not know something about. Intelligence is prejudice really. -- 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/-/ZZvUYt_c5s8J. 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: Against Mechanism
On 14 Dec 2012, at 21:54, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM, alias comp), there are two first person points of view Yes, Bruno Marchal has said that many times and it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the question is asked about the future state of you and demands are made for one and only one answer. Of course, as the guy is duplicated, and the question is about a future first person points of view, which is single (as the two copies can handled only one diary and put only a definite result in there). To confirm the probabilities, with such a definition of 1-view, you have to interview all copies. John Clark has been complaining about the unfettered use of personal pronouns in a world with duplicating chambers for a long time now, and yet those who disagree with John Clark continue to use those pronouns as frequently as ever, it seems that those people just cannot help themselves. If you read the post you can see that I have no more use pronouns for a whole. I use H-man, W-man, M-man, and you have agreed on the key points: - the M and W men are both the H-man - the M and W men are different. this gives sense to the first person indeterminacy lived by the H-man before the duplication. Your problem is that you keep the 3p view throughout the experience, in which case everything is deterministic, but this avoids the question asked, simply. The very fact that opponents are simply unable to express ideas without using those cancerous pronouns should give those people some insight into the nature of those aforesaid ideas. I have no more used pronouns, to help yopu, as this was pure red herring once you label them correctly with respect to the 1/3 distinctions. you just limit yourself to the 3p view, and never put you feet in the shoes of the reconstituted person, And Bruno Marchal never explains which of those two first person points of view you should put feet into Wong. I told you: all of them. It is easy, they all agree that they get a result that they was unable to predict, so the 1p-indeterminacy is a certainty for the original candidate. and which first person viewpoint you should not. Bruno Marchal simply cannot converse on this subject unless 5 to 10% of the words are personal pronouns, in spite of the fact that if it was always clear what those pronouns referred to this entire debate would be unnecessary. pfft You are discouraging as you don't even read the comments. You get stuck in the easy part of the derivation. Nobody can teach anything to people who does not the homework. 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: Against Mechanism
On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:07, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter and it sends him to Washington. That Bruno, Bruno_w goes back to Helsinki, gets in the transporter again andit sends him to Moscow. That Bruno_wm goes back to Helsinki and repeats this process many times. Eventually Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm concludes that the transporter seems to be random and just sends him to Washington or Moscow at random with probability 1/2. This is hailed as a great discovery...in Copenhagen. But in Washington (state) near the upper reached of Puget Sound there is a dislike of random things and a general feeling that randomness can never be a property of the world, but only a quantification of ignorance. So there a different view of Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm's experiment is that every time he pushed the button two whole universes were created, separated by more than the Hubble radius, and in one Bruno went to Bruno_w and in the other he went to Bruno_m. And so there was no probability involved, exactly the same thing happened every time. It only seemed like probability and randomness. Some people thought this was a little extravagant and asked how was energy conserved and how could this theory be tested. But they were silenced by being told the theory predicted exactly the same things as the probability theory without probabilities, so it must be right. -- Hi, Great post! I would like to know how the sequence wmwwmwmmmww...mwm is recorded and passed along. There is a tacit assumption of a book keeper at infinity' here! No, each Bruno takes his notebook with him which get transported also and he just writes down where he arrived before heading back to Helsinki. Exactly. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:09, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self. However, if it goes into a multiple existence then - my problem is - what happens to the 'experience' of self1 while you consider yourself at self2 location? the self-s inadvertently diverge so you cannot be both (or more). In such case the 'pronoun' sindrom is valid. YOU are the ONE passing several locations - accumulating continual experience upon yourself (the 1) and if you happen to return to a former one, it will not be YOU. I think the conclusion is that there is no you in the sense of unique. But there is: the content of all diaries determined each time, in all situations, such a you. It's like talking about the dollar coin. If it's duplicated or multiplied it's not unique and you is ambiguous - which is what John Clark complains about. Because John introduce ambiguous to avoid indeterminate, but with the definition of the 1-view, there is no ambiguity at all, just indetermination. Ambiguity is taking care of by the 1-3 distinction. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
Hi Bruno Marchal Pardon my ignorance, but what is Dt ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:47:59 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 06 Dec 2012, at 18:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear. Bruno Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: p Bp Bp p Bp Dt Bp Dt p See sane04 for more detail. Bp is the arithmetical formula beweisbar of G?l 1931, p is an arbitrary Sigma_1 sentences. In fact it is 4 + 4*infinity, as you have also all B^n p + D^m t with n m. This gives a graded set of quantum logics. And they all have different color fro different machines, that is, the logic of those points of view are the same for all correct machines, but their explicit content can be completely different. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows
On 16 Dec 2012, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives indeed generally resist most (but not all) change because the changes are emotionally based rather than logically based, and so often do more harm than good. And waste money. You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women the vote, putting up lightning rods, vaccination,... all those 'emotionally based' changes that conservatives opposed in the name of God, the bible, and the divine right of kings? We will have to wait to see if I am right or not, but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare will be at least a financial catastrophe. It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style national health care, which costs only half as much per capita. The Dems had to compromise by mandating private insurance in order to get the insurance company lobbyist on their side. In a working democracy, both the left and the right are important. You can vote on the left when the country go to far on the right, and on the right when he go to far on the left. That is what is important. The problem with old democracies, is that the politicians get to know each other and eventually, if the corruption level is too high, you can no more make difference, as they defend only special interests. Personally as long as the lies on drugs continue, I really doubt the word politics can have any sensible meaning. A working political systems necessitate some investment in education. Obama was very promising at the start, but he has quickly shown that the democrats can be more republicans than the republicans. We will see, as he might have more degree of freedom in his second term, but my hope are not so high about that. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi Bruno Marchal Arithmetic truth ? Perhaps to a mathematician, and it might be useful along the way, but as a pragmatist, and a human being, I submit that the only truth that we can use is one whose meaning we correctly understand. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content -
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows
Hi Craig Weinberg Ultimately we can arrive at a better society, but ultimately we will all be broke. Look at europe. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-15, 15:59:22 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:44:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Dear Roger, No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine over their utopia in the past. I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and put future back in a box? Craig Hi Craig, How about we drop the entire idea of utopias and work together to solve the problems that we have with the tools that we know work (as they have worked before in similar situations). That is what Progressive politics is all about. That is how you move toward a better society. I have never heard them use the word utopia or perfect society though. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes or some such... That's what I'm saying. Hanging on to slavery, apartheid, colonialism, etc was a mistake. 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/-/0cVPlHnAqKkJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 16 Dec 2012, at 07:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/15/2012 6:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Craig, All of these points are instances of taking a particular evaluational frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements from it. It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply wrongheaded. Unless you put yourself into the context with you are evaluating and then considering the facts as they stand with a set of universal ethical principles, then those judgements and implications cannot be seen as anything more than rationalizations to behave in one way or another. We can rationalize any action to be good or bad. Rationalization, pushed too far, allows anything. Or supports any status quo and condemns any change as destruction. So I guess slavery was right in U.S. in 1850 and only suddenly became wrong in 1861. Hi Brent, How is that? Are you going to invoke the Grue paradox? I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. If the hypothetical are effectively real, they would not be hypothetical. Bruno -- 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:15:02 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I believe that life and consciousness and intelligence are inseparable because none can act without the others being involved. Sense - biological quality sense (life) - animal quality sense (animal life) - human quality sense (consciousness). Intelligence is a subjective judgment. Any action which is deemed to improve efficiency or effectiveness will be deemed intelligent whether it is the consequence of intention or not. Machines can seem intelligent, but machines cannot seem to understand deeply (yet). Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-14, 19:37:50 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows On Friday, December 14, 2012 7:19:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what I feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom. Of course that's possible. In fact it is a common psychotic delusion. Indeed, we are complex and have many competing aspects of our self with different agendas. The reason why it doesn't make sense however, is why would any process exist which creates an epiphenomenal person such as you. By extension, that is the problem with mechanism and functionalism as well. If you have a perfectly good computer which operates a robot navigating a physical world whose purpose is to survive and reproduce, what would be the advantage of generating an internal representation delusion to some made up 'person' program when the computer is already controlling the robot perfectly well. It would be like installing an chip inside of your computer to simulate an impressionist painter who actually paints tiny paintings for a made up audience of puppets to think that they are looking at. Even then, you still have the Explanatory Gap/homunculus problem. You still ARE NO CLOSER to closing the gap as now you have an interior 'model' which has no mechanism for perception. You have just moved the Cartesian Theater inside of biochemistry, but it still explains nothing about how you get from endogenous light to endogenous eyes which see images through biophotons rather than are simply informed of their quantitative significance directly and digitally. You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would have been no reason for consciousness to have evolved. Consciousness evolved from awareness, not intelligence. Awareness did not evolve. Evolution is a feature of experience, which is the consequence of awareness. Intelligent behavior is more or less meaningless. It's a outsider's judgment on some observed activity where he projects his own standards of sense and motive onto some context he may or may not know something about. Intelligence is prejudice really. -- 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/-/ZZvUYt_c5s8J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/9erI77TIIFsJ. 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: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:20:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg No, I meant you are imputing guilt on me. I understand, but I am saying that nobody is responsible for their feelings of guilt but themselves. Try it out. 'You are a really crummy person for stealing that crate of booze.' Does that impute guilt on you? Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-15, 15:51:51 *Subject:* Re: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:31:58 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That's the old guilt argument. It's as old as Robin Hood and is just as likely to stay with us as it works. It's funny, I only feel guilt when I am guilty. It's called having a conscience. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-12-15, 14:55:57 *Subject:* Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I beg to differ. My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said, Don't just do something.Stand there. That's great if you are already standing on top of a mountain of inherited privilege. Why not stand there? But why should anyone other than the ruling minority of the world be compelled to agree? Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-12-15, 14:46:07 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Dear Roger, No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine over their utopia in the past. I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and put future back in a box? Craig Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. They should listen more to each other and stop the childish recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. -- 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/-/Ydy9ATa3GFMJ. 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/-/NZZYfYXxpfgJ. 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/-/UB3bBg-zMNIJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7RyknmXxl8QJ. 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
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:58:21 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Ultimately we can arrive at a better society, but ultimately we will all be broke. Look at europe. If we don't arrive at a better society, we'll all be in debt and sick. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-15, 15:59:22 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:44:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Dear Roger, No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine over their utopia in the past. I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and put future back in a box? Craig Hi Craig, How about we drop the entire idea of utopias and work together to solve the problems that we have with the tools that we know work (as they have worked before in similar situations). That is what Progressive politics is all about. That is how you move toward a better society. I have never heard them use the word utopia or perfect society though. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes or some such... That's what I'm saying. Hanging on to slavery, apartheid, colonialism, etc * was a mistake*. 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/-/0cVPlHnAqKkJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Qg_Lw1Xb5iMJ. 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives indeed generally resist most (but not all) change because the changes are emotionally based rather than logically based, and so often do more harm than good. And waste money. You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women the vote, putting up lightning rods, vaccination,... all those 'emotionally based' changes that conservatives opposed in the name of God, the bible, and the divine right of kings? We will have to wait to see if I am right or not, but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare will be at least a financial catastrophe. It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style national health care, which costs only half as much per capita. The Dems had to compromise by mandating private insurance in order to get the insurance company lobbyist on their side. In a working democracy, both the left and the right are important. You can vote on the left when the country go to far on the right, and on the right when he go to far on the left. That is what is important. The problem with old democracies, is that the politicians get to know each other and eventually, if the corruption level is too high, you can no more make difference, as they defend only special interests. Personally as long as the lies on drugs continue, I really doubt the word politics can have any sensible meaning. A working political systems necessitate some investment in education. Obama was very promising at the start, but he has quickly shown that the democrats can be more republicans than the republicans. We will see, as he might have more degree of freedom in his second term, but my hope are not so high about that. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Yes, I agree. My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/QVg-uKnAr4kJ. 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers dreams (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Arithmetic truth ? Perhaps to a mathematician, and it might be useful along the way, but as a pragmatist, and a human being, I submit that the only truth that we can use is one whose meaning we correctly understand. OK? Then it is only on arithmetic that all scientists clearly agree on, and would say without anxiousness, we can correctly understand. Beyond arithmetic philosophy/theology begins. With the CTM, that beyond arithmetic is an inside arithmetic view of the numbers, which cannot avoid it if they want to grasp themselves. (a bit like Riemann needed the complex numbers to study the distribution of the primes natural numbers). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they
Re: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:55:07 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 12:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Yeah, but we happen to be siting in the 21st century using the knowledge that has accumulated by science and so forth to pass judgement on people that did not have our current capacity and we can claim to not be bigoted? NO! Who said anything about us not being bigoted? That doesn't mean that conservatives were right on slavery, or Civil Rights, or Women's Suffrage, or the Cold War, or McCarthyism, or Vietnam, or the War on Drugs, or Trickle Down economics...I am hard pressed to find a single example of Conservative policies that were not ugly and prejudiced failures which were subsequently exposed as worthless and swept under the carpet eventually. Even trying to factor in my presumed bias - and some extra to cover my unpresumed bias...what country in the world today is an example of the success of Conservatism? What policy works? I'm sure that there must be some. What are they? Hi, Try this. Consider a number of cities in the US that have been governed by predominantly Progressive policies and compare then, apples to apples, to a number cities that have been governed Conservatively with one stipulation: that Progressive policies are those that Progressives are in fact in favor of and Conservative Policies are those that are defined by Conservative people and decide for yourself which kind of city you with to life in. If we allow one side to define the terms of the argument, who is going to win the argument? I wouldn't know which cities have been governed which way or what the differences are. There are big expensive cities and not as big, not as expensive cities. Otherwise I don't see much difference in quality of life in US cities, certainly none that I could attribute to any particular leadership slant. I have not been to Houston but if I had to guess I would say that it has developed under more consistently conservative politics than San Francisco. I would choose to live in San Francisco if I could afford it - but I can't because it is one of the most desirable real estate markets in the world. How does one overcome the problem of a insufficient samplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalizationin StatMech? I don't wish to make decisions or reason for you. Is there a sufficient sample to look at? Are we to accept the indictment of our possible ancestors for crimes that they may have committed to cast a shadow on our lives? Really? It's not a matter of placing blame. Again - anyone in their place would likely have done the same thing. The issue is how to move forward given the inevitable consequences of what happened up to this point. What choice did you or I have in the nature and behavior of our respective possible ancestors? I had just as much choice as I have of the color of the skin I was born with! So what does the lottery of life have to do with things? Aha, now you know how it might feel to be judged on the color of your skin or your sexual orientation. OK. I rest my case. OK. Time for breakfast! -- 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/-/Q5gzbgAyUOkJ. 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: Are monads tokens ?
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:36:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Are monads tokens ? I'm going to say yes, because each monad refers to a corporeal body as a whole (so it is nonreductive at the physical end) even though each monad, being specific about what it refers to, identifies the type of object it refers to. Monads are self-tokenizing tokenizers but not actually tokens (tokens of what? other Monads?). Tokens don't 'exist', they are figures of computation, which is semiosis, a sensory-motive experience within the cognitive symbolic ranges of awareness. Craig Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Roger Clough javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-16, 08:17:27 *Subject:* Davidson on truth ** *Donald Davidson on truth * I don't think you can do any better on understanding truth than studying Donald Davidson. As I understand him, in 1) he justifies comp (the use of tokens, because they are nonreductive) as long as we allow for (a) mental causation of physical events; (b) that there is a strict exceptionless relation (iff) between the events; (c) that we use tokens and not types to relate mental to physical events 2) He narrows down what form of language can be used. Not sure but this seems to allow only finite, learnable context-free expressions only 3) He clarifies the meaning and use of 1p vs 3p. Observed that Hume accepted only 1p knowledege, the logical positivists accepted only 3p knowledge, where 1p is knowledge by acquaintance and 3p is knowledge by description. I might add that IMHO 1p is Kierkegaard's view that truth is subjective, so K is close to Hume. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Davidson_%28philosopher%29#Mental_events *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Davidson_%28philosopher%29/lMental_events *1. Token Mental events ( A justification of token physicalism: these being comp and purely token functionalism)* In Mental Events (1970) Davidson advanced a form of token *identity theory* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theory about the mind: token *mental events*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_eventare identical to token physical events. One previous difficulty with such a view was that it did not seem feasible to provide laws relating mental states--for example, believing that the sky is blue, or wanting a hamburger--to physical states, such as patterns of neural activity in the brain. Davidson argued that such a reduction would not be necessary to a token identity thesis: it is possible that each individual mental event just is the corresponding physical event, without there being laws relating *types* (as opposed to tokens) of mental events to *types* of physical events. But, Davidson argued, the fact that we could not have such a reduction does not entail that the mind is anything *more* than the brain. Hence, Davidson called his position *anomalous monism*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism: monism, because it claims that only one thing is at issue in questions of mental and physical events; anomalous (from *a-*, not, and *omalos*, regular) because mental and physical event *types* could not be connected by strict laws (laws without exceptions). Davidson argued that anomalous monism *follows from*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequencethree plausible theses. First, he assumes the *denial of **epiphenomenalism*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism--that is, the denial of the view that mental events do not cause physical events. Second, he assumes a *nomological view of causation*, according to which one event causes another if (and only if) there is a strict, exceptionless law governing the relation between the events. Third, he assumes the principle of the *anomalism of the mental*, according to which there are no strict laws that govern the relationship between mental event types and physical event types. By these three theses, Davidson argued, it follows that the causal relations between the mental and the physical hold only between mental event tokens, but that mental events as types are anomalous. This ultimately secures token physicalism and a *supervenience*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superveniencerelation between the mental and the physical, while respecting the autonomy of the mental (Malpas, 2005, §2). *2. Truth and meaning (A justification of the use of certain types of language--- I think this might mean context-free (finite) language)* In 1967 Davidson published Truth and Meaning, in which he argued that any *learnable* language must be statable in a finite form, even if it is capable of a theoretically infinite number of expressions--as we may assume that natural human
Re: life is teleological
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: It is the infinities you need to say always NO to the doctor despite each year he lowers the level of its digital brains. I can understand you say no to the doctor who proposes you a 16K brain-computer, but why saying no to the new one 1024^16000 sensory-motor-quantum-computer, especially if the choice is between dying for sure (in the usual clinical sense) or having perhaps the opportunity to stay alive for awhile (assuming you feel having something more to say) ? Bruno On the basis of my beliefs, I will always say no to the doctor because I am looking forward to my death which is just my release from my physical bondage. It seems to me that CTM predicts that possibility. Richard -- 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: life is teleological
On 16 Dec 2012, at 17:22, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: It is the infinities you need to say always NO to the doctor despite each year he lowers the level of its digital brains. I can understand you say no to the doctor who proposes you a 16K brain-computer, but why saying no to the new one 1024^16000 sensory-motor-quantum-computer, especially if the choice is between dying for sure (in the usual clinical sense) or having perhaps the opportunity to stay alive for awhile (assuming you feel having something more to say) ? Bruno On the basis of my beliefs, I will always say no to the doctor because I am looking forward to my death which is just my release from my physical bondage. It seems to me that CTM predicts that possibility. Yes. If you survive with an artificial digital brain, then you survive no matter what, which might be as much terrifying than wishful thinking, especially that we don't know who we are, and the math get quickly *quite* complex. It even depends in part on what you are ready to identify with. People will not accept artificial brain to be immortal, but just to see the next soccer cup, or the anniversary birthday of the grand- grand-grand-daughter or something. Most people usually feel no hurry for the Nirvana, and most might want to explore a little bit more the Samsara (especially that it looks like there are evolving technics to get a glimpse of the Nirvana, while staying in the Samsara). Bruno Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge
On 12/16/2012 3:29 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 9:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: If you have a group of people getting rich while other people are in bondage to them and stay poor, that presents a problem for social mobility - which is being realized now as the US has fallen beneath several other countries in social mobility. Hi, OK, we need a theory of social mobility that makes accurate predictions. Got one? Could we say that the fact that the US has fallen in its measure of social mobility tell us something about the failure of some current policies or combination as having some causal effect of that fall in ranking? Sure. Two obvious ones. Reducing income and estate taxes and making students pay more for higher education. When economic mobility was greatest the top marginal tax rate was 90% and the G.I. bill was sending people through college. Brent -- Hi Brent, OK, let us implement an experiment where we set up conditions that are equivalent to the top marginal tax rate was 90% and the G.I. bill was sending people through college and see what happens. It seems to me that you are assuming that these two factors alone where the cause of the greater social mobility. I would like to see some proof of that claim. -- 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: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
On 12/16/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 18:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear. Bruno Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: Dear Bruno, p 1 Bp 2 Bp p 3 Bp Dt 4 Bp Dt p 5 I count 5. Where are 6, 7 and 8? See sane04 for more detail. Bp is the arithmetical formula beweisbar of Göel 1931, p is an arbitrary Sigma_1 sentences. OK, is it correct that there are countably many Sigma_1 sentences? In fact it is 4 + 4*infinity, as you have also all B^n p + D^m t with n m. This gives a graded set of quantum logics. I wish you could discuss the meaning of these two sentences. And they all have different color for different machines, that is, the logic of those points of view are the same for all correct machines, but their explicit content can be completely different. Bruno How many colors are there and what acts to distinguish them from each other? -- 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/16/2012 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [BM] Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. [SPK] I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend of the choice of basis and framing. Prove? This is contrary to what Everett said, and I have try to contradict him on this, eventually he is right. Deustch tought like you but has eventually change its mind. There are no prefer basis, and with the CTM there are not even a prefer ontological theory. Dear Bruno, Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows
On 12/15/2012 10:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: OK, we now have good enough reasons to reeducate them people. Are you trying to be a guard at that camp that I might possibly need to bribe? I grew up as a son of Bible Thumpers. So did I. I've noticed that conservatives and libertarians are inordinately fond of slippery-slope arguments. Any suggested change can be extrapolated to a dystopia. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. 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: Against Mechanism
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the question is asked about the future state of you and demands are made for one and only one answer. Of course, as the guy is duplicated, and the question is about a future first person points of view, That is incorrect and I'm surprised at such a elementary error in logic. The question is about a PRESENT first person point of view about what that person guesses a FUTURE first person point of view will be. which is single With the stipulation that there can be one and only one correct answer, and that is also a error. John Clark has been complaining about the unfettered use of personal pronouns in a world with duplicating chambers for a long time now, and yet those who disagree with John Clark continue to use those pronouns as frequently as ever, it seems that those people just cannot help themselves. If you read the post you can see that I have no more use pronouns for a whole. I use H-man, W-man, M-man, The few times that was attempted it did not work because Bruno Marchal does not know who the Helsinki Man is. About half the time Bruno Marchal implicitly defines the Helsinki Man the same way John Clark does, as anybody who remembers being the Helsinki Man; in which case the probability of the Helsinki Man seeing Washington in the future is 100%. But the other half of the time Bruno Marchal implicitly defines the Helsinki Man as someone who is currently experiencing Helsinki; in which case the probability of the Helsinki Man seeing Washington in the future (or anything else for that matter) is 0% because in the future nobody will be experiencing Helsinki anymore. These definitions and not congruent, and if that wasn't bad enough under neither definition is the probability 50%. And Bruno Marchal never explains which of those two first person points of view you should put feet into Wong. I told you: all of them. Good, then the probability Bruno Marchal will see Washington is 100% and the probability Bruno Marchal will see Moscow is 100%. You get stuck in the easy part of the derivation. If that was the part of the proof that was the clearest and most obviously true then I'm very glad I didn't try to read more. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/15/2012 10:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Try this. Consider a number of cities in the US that have been governed by predominantly Progressive policies and compare then, apples to apples, to a number cities that have been governed Conservatively with one stipulation: that Progressive policies are those that Progressives are in fact in favor of and Conservative Policies are those that are defined by Conservative people and decide for yourself which kind of city you with to life in. I don't think there's any city in the U.S. that could be considered to by *predominantly* liberal or *predominantly* conservative. They're all mixtures; partly because they all fall under state and federal laws. And in general cities are more liberal than rural areas. Of course you could still compare more liberal vs less liberal: San Jose vs Simi Valley or Austin vs Lubbock but to get more contrast you'd probably need to consider non-U.S. cities: Vancouver vs Oklahoma City... But more to the point, this political discussion is waaay off topic. 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people mean when they designate their beliefs. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. If the hypothetical are effectively real, they would not be hypothetical. Q.E.D. -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, i.e. not provably false? 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows
On 12/16/2012 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Hi Craig, To me it boils down to a willingness to be objective. If one defines a standard of measure of good and bad, then one must apply it consistently. Otherwise there is no such thing as good' or 'bad. Tribalism comes with a shiftable measure of good and bad (stealing from non-members of the tribe is OK, stealing from tribe members is bad, for example), this makes tribalism bad, IMHO, not matter what kind of tribalism it is! -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. Brent -- Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity in Afghanistan and in somewhere we are. This is an equivocation, thus a rubbish argument. -- 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people mean when they designate their beliefs. ...also, a god that shows a surprising level of interest in what we, puny humans, do with our genitals. I was going to make a very similar comment, but then decided against it. Bruno is a brilliant philosopher, so I guess it doesn't matter how he labels himself. I can understand the reluctance to be associated with a type of close-mindness present in (some) atheists. 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. -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 2:00 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Try this. Consider a number of cities in the US that have been governed by predominantly Progressive policies and compare then, apples to apples, to a number cities that have been governed Conservatively with one stipulation: that Progressive policies are those that Progressives are in fact in favor of and Conservative Policies are those that are defined by Conservative people and decide for yourself which kind of city you with to life in. I don't think there's any city in the U.S. that could be considered to by *predominantly* liberal or *predominantly* conservative. They're all mixtures; partly because they all fall under state and federal laws. And in general cities are more liberal than rural areas. Of course you could still compare more liberal vs less liberal: San Jose vs Simi Valley or Austin vs Lubbock but to get more contrast you'd probably need to consider non-U.S. cities: Vancouver vs Oklahoma City... Hi! Yes. This is my point: measures are arbitrary when one does not assume a fixed standard. Applying a measure (that assumes a uniform distribution or partition) on inhomogeneous data will almost always lead to bullshit results. But more to the point, this political discussion is waaay off topic. Brent Yes it is! Thank you for pointing this out. -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:47:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. Brent -- Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity in Afghanistan and in somewhere we are. This is an equivocation, thus a rubbish argument. Eh, there is a direct relation. After WW.II, The US and other world powers have been playing Chess with the Third World. Toppling democracies, installing puppet regimes. That's pretty much the CIAs function. The actual history is interesting.. the Oliver Stone series on Showtime right now is pretty informative. Why were we messing with the governments if Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Afghanistan? Why did the average citizens of those countries pose a threat to the oil companies and agribusiness? 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/-/LAjAocngmYgJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
The assumption here is that Oliver Stone is presenting verifiable history, rather then his own, Neo-marxist Theory of history. That the Third World (an invented word of the Left) is deserving of deep respect, and is presumed blameless in all things, as well. I notice the avoidance of blaming Islamists for jihad actions in the world, or do you feel we should have sued the Afghan government in the Hague, rather then invade? Secondly, in Afghanistan, should we have allowed the Soviets to remain unchallenged during their involvement there? Another element of the neo-Marxist is to avoid speaking to Soviet actions in the world that was. -Original Message- From: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 3:05 pm Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism On Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:47:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. Brent -- Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity in Afghanistan and in somewhere we are. This is an equivocation, thus a rubbish argument. Eh, there is a direct relation. After WW.II, The US and other world powers have been playing Chess with the Third World. Toppling democracies, installing puppet regimes. That's pretty much the CIAs function. The actual history is interesting.. the Oliver Stone series on Showtime right now is pretty informative. Why were we messing with the governments if Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Afghanistan? Why did the average citizens of those countries pose a threat to the oil companies and agribusiness? Craig -- nward! 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/-/LAjAocngmYgJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:54 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: The assumption here is that Oliver Stone is presenting verifiable history, rather then his own, Neo-marxist Theory of history. That the Third World (an invented word of the Left) is deserving of deep respect, and is presumed blameless in all things, as well. I notice the avoidance of blaming Islamists for jihad actions in the world, or do you feel we should have sued the Afghan government in the Hague, rather then invade? Secondly, in Afghanistan, should we have allowed the Soviets to remain unchallenged during their involvement there? Another element of the neo-Marxist is to avoid speaking to Soviet actions in the world that was. It just depends what we want to do. If we want to try to be the last empire on Earth, then we should continue lying, cheating, and bombing the most territories that we can into submission and hold on to it as long as we can. If we do that, the current trend of degradation and corruption will likely be amplified and we will go the way of all failed civilizations. If we took another route and rolled back the empire, then we would have a lot of intense social dislocation and readjustment but ultimately maybe have a chance of joining the rest of the world as an equal partner nation. If you know of anything that Stone is presenting that is false I would be interested in hearing what that is. While he is obviously presenting his narrative of what happened, he makes no secret of it. I don't think that any of the events he depicts are in dispute. I will say that he de-emphasizes the transgressions which do not support his narrative, but it is ridiculous to say that these Neolithic-hut dwelling people did something to deserve being invaded and destabilized by American black ops. Craig -Original Message- From: Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 3:05 pm Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism On Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:47:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. Brent -- Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity in Afghanistan and in somewhere we are. This is an equivocation, thus a rubbish argument. Eh, there is a direct relation. After WW.II, The US and other world powers have been playing Chess with the Third World. Toppling democracies, installing puppet regimes. That's pretty much the CIAs function. The actual history is interesting.. the Oliver Stone series on Showtime right now is pretty informative. Why were we messing with the governments if Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Afghanistan? Why did the average citizens of those countries pose a threat to the oil companies and agribusiness? 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/-/LAjAocngmYgJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/UbNn8FxTdhkJ. 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people mean when they designate their beliefs. ...also, a god that shows a surprising level of interest in what we, puny humans, do with our genitals. I was going to make a very similar comment, but then decided against it. Bruno is a brilliant philosopher, so I guess it doesn't matter how he labels himself. I can understand the reluctance to be associated with a type of close-mindness present in (some) atheists. Telmo, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Richard 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. -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows
On 12/16/2012 11:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/16/2012 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Hi Craig, To me it boils down to a willingness to be objective. If one defines a standard of measure of good and bad, then one must apply it consistently. Otherwise there is no such thing as good' or 'bad. Tribalism comes with a shiftable measure of good and bad (stealing from non-members of the tribe is OK, stealing from tribe members is bad, for example), this makes tribalism bad, IMHO, not matter what kind of tribalism it is! That strikes me a confused from the start. What does 'defining' have to do with good or bad. I think you need to recognize that ethics, public standards of behavior, are separate from morals, personal standards based on personal values. Personal values are relatively incorrigble, a cire is hardwired by evolution, and so ethical systems can be measured by how well personal values are satisfied. But neither the personal values or the public ethics are just 'defined' by somebody. Beyond what is provided by biological evolution both are cultural and cultures evolve and compete too. So a culture that is worse as measured by personal satisfaction by conquer and eliminate a culture that provides more personal satisfaction; think Sparta vs Athens or Mao vs Sun Yat Sen. Bertrand Russell said that the democratic and open society always defeats the more autocratic and closed society in warfare, but that may be true only in the long run. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:47:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. Brent -- Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity in Afghanistan and in somewhere we are. This is an equivocation, thus a rubbish argument. Eh, there is a direct relation. After WW.II, The US and other world powers have been playing Chess with the Third World. Toppling democracies, installing puppet regimes. That's pretty much the CIAs function. The actual history is interesting.. the Oliver Stone series on Showtime right now is pretty informative. Why were we messing with the governments if Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Afghanistan? Why did the average citizens of those countries pose a threat to the oil companies and agribusiness? Craig OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 3:19 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: The assumption here is that Oliver Stone is presenting verifiable history, rather then his own, Neo-marxist Theory of history. That the Third World (an invented word of the Left) is deserving of deep respect, and is presumed blameless in all things, as well. I notice the avoidance of blaming Islamists for jihad actions in the world, or do you feel we should have sued the Afghan government in the Hague, rather then invade? Secondly, in Afghanistan, should we have allowed the Soviets to remain unchallenged during their involvement there? Another element of the neo-Marxist is to avoid speaking to Soviet actions in the world that was. Hi Spudboy100! Exactly! -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 3:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:54 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: The assumption here is that Oliver Stone is presenting verifiable history, rather then his own, Neo-marxist Theory of history. That the Third World (an invented word of the Left) is deserving of deep respect, and is presumed blameless in all things, as well. I notice the avoidance of blaming Islamists for jihad actions in the world, or do you feel we should have sued the Afghan government in the Hague, rather then invade? Secondly, in Afghanistan, should we have allowed the Soviets to remain unchallenged during their involvement there? Another element of the neo-Marxist is to avoid speaking to Soviet actions in the world that was. It just depends what we want to do. If we want to try to be the last empire on Earth, then we should continue lying, cheating, and bombing the most territories that we can into submission and hold on to it as long as we can. If we do that, the current trend of degradation and corruption will likely be amplified and we will go the way of all failed civilizations. If we took another route and rolled back the empire, then we would have a lot of intense social dislocation and readjustment but ultimately maybe have a chance of joining the rest of the world as an equal partner nation. If you know of anything that Stone is presenting that is false I would be interested in hearing what that is. While he is obviously presenting his narrative of what happened, he makes no secret of it. I don't think that any of the events he depicts are in dispute. I will say that he de-emphasizes the transgressions which do not support his narrative, but it is ridiculous to say that these Neolithic-hut dwelling people did something to deserve being invaded and destabilized by American black ops. Craig Hi, What about all of the other possible theories of history? What makes Stone's theory any more credible than my own? Is it because he is famous? Famous people are well known to be just as wrong as any one else. -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:16:51 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:47:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. Brent -- Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity in Afghanistan and in somewhere we are. This is an equivocation, thus a rubbish argument. Eh, there is a direct relation. After WW.II, The US and other world powers have been playing Chess with the Third World. Toppling democracies, installing puppet regimes. That's pretty much the CIAs function. The actual history is interesting.. the Oliver Stone series on Showtime right now is pretty informative. Why were we messing with the governments if Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Afghanistan? Why did the average citizens of those countries pose a threat to the oil companies and agribusiness? Craig OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha 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/-/ye9NYjzvLdAJ. 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows
On 12/16/2012 3:53 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 11:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/16/2012 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Hi Craig, To me it boils down to a willingness to be objective. If one defines a standard of measure of good and bad, then one must apply it consistently. Otherwise there is no such thing as good' or 'bad. Tribalism comes with a shiftable measure of good and bad (stealing from non-members of the tribe is OK, stealing from tribe members is bad, for example), this makes tribalism bad, IMHO, not matter what kind of tribalism it is! That strikes me a confused from the start. Hi Brent, Yep, it is. We already agreed that political discussions are off-topic here, but we go on and have fun with them anyway. My motivation is to use this discussion as a way to look at how we define measures. ;-) What does 'defining' have to do with good or bad. Because our minds do not come pre-loaded with knowledge of what is good and bad. IMHO, we have to figure such valuations as we go. I think you need to recognize that ethics, public standards of behavior, are separate from morals, personal standards based on personal values. What is the dividing line? It seems to me that the difference that makes a difference is that public measures are stationary with respect to variations in the individual measures of the members of the group that make up the 'public'. Personal values are relatively incorrigble, a cire is hardwired by evolution, What is a cire? and so ethical systems can be measured by how well personal values are satisfied. Ah, but this implies a measure of its own; a measure that is private: how well personal values are satisfied. I see circularity! But neither the personal values or the public ethics are just 'defined' by somebody. What defines the somebody? Some hypothetical ideal person? What is the list of traits of such? Blond - brunette - ginger, blue - brown eyed, strong - weak, obedient - spirited, ...? Beyond what is provided by biological evolution both are cultural and cultures evolve and compete too. So a culture that is worse as measured by personal satisfaction by conquer and eliminate a culture that provides more personal satisfaction; think Sparta vs Athens or Mao vs Sun Yat Sen. OK, good point. Bertrand Russell said that the democratic and open society always defeats the more autocratic and closed society in warfare, but that may be true only in the long run. I agree with Bertrand, but I also think that he would agree that if policies which do not select for behaviors that are error correcting and equiminious, but instead select for the inability to define measures of good v. Bad are guaranteed to lead to tyrrany. Witness the rise of Napoleon in post Revolution France. The failure mode of democracy is that voters can come to be able to loot the treasury of the state and the pockets of any one that complains about the looting. -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:44:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Control them to do what? Build libraries instead of liquidating them to add a number in some billionaire's bank account? Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! You mean the Defense contractors and beneficiaries of huge industrial and agricultural subsidies? 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/-/NgdiaEZtMm4J. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:22:30 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 3:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:54 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: The assumption here is that Oliver Stone is presenting verifiable history, rather then his own, Neo-marxist Theory of history. That the Third World (an invented word of the Left) is deserving of deep respect, and is presumed blameless in all things, as well. I notice the avoidance of blaming Islamists for jihad actions in the world, or do you feel we should have sued the Afghan government in the Hague, rather then invade? Secondly, in Afghanistan, should we have allowed the Soviets to remain unchallenged during their involvement there? Another element of the neo-Marxist is to avoid speaking to Soviet actions in the world that was. It just depends what we want to do. If we want to try to be the last empire on Earth, then we should continue lying, cheating, and bombing the most territories that we can into submission and hold on to it as long as we can. If we do that, the current trend of degradation and corruption will likely be amplified and we will go the way of all failed civilizations. If we took another route and rolled back the empire, then we would have a lot of intense social dislocation and readjustment but ultimately maybe have a chance of joining the rest of the world as an equal partner nation. If you know of anything that Stone is presenting that is false I would be interested in hearing what that is. While he is obviously presenting his narrative of what happened, he makes no secret of it. I don't think that any of the events he depicts are in dispute. I will say that he de-emphasizes the transgressions which do not support his narrative, but it is ridiculous to say that these Neolithic-hut dwelling people did something to deserve being invaded and destabilized by American black ops. Craig Hi, What about all of the other possible theories of history? This series isn't a theory, it's just recent US history focusing on the deeper background of the people involved. He shows how even the generals disagreed with Truman that dropping the A-Bombs was necessary, how the Russians did the bulk of the fighting against the Nazis (they lost like 23,000,000 people to our 418,500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). Which is ironic considering that right wingers now try to claim that Hitler was some kind of Marxist (of course the opposite is true). What makes Stone's theory any more credible than my own? Is it because he is famous? Famous people are well known to be just as wrong as any one else. There's no theory. Watch the series sometime. 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/-/grjFZ0E4AqUJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 7:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:44:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Control them to do what? Build libraries instead of liquidating them to add a number in some billionaire's bank account? Libraries full of books that no one can read? Nice idea! There is a saying that applies here. /It is not possible to fix a real problem by just changing one thing./ Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! You mean the Defense contractors and beneficiaries of huge industrial and agricultural subsidies? Sure! but wait, not banks and insurance companies? Why not ban all corporations? No, wait, we might need them -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/16/2012 7:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: What about all of the other possible theories of history? This series isn't a theory, it's just recent US history focusing on the deeper background of the people involved. He shows how even the generals disagreed with Truman that dropping the A-Bombs was necessary, how the Russians did the bulk of the fighting against the Nazis (they lost like 23,000,000 people to our 418,500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). Which is ironic considering that right wingers now try to claim that Hitler was some kind of Marxist (of course the opposite is true). What makes Stone's theory any more credible than my own? Is it because he is famous? Famous people are well known to be just as wrong as any one else. There's no theory. Watch the series sometime. Craig, My point is that there is no such a thing as an objective account of history. Any account of the history of the world, where many people and things are involved in many processes at many diverse levels, will be biased because one can only take a point of view that generates an integrates sense. The universe is not simple and we should never expect that any simple narative of it is the whole story. Oliver Stone is an artist, not a divine teller of truths. Stop the idolatry, please. -- 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. Richard 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 7:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:44:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Control them to do what? Build libraries instead of liquidating them to add a number in some billionaire's bank account? Libraries full of books that no one can read? Why can't people read? Nice idea! There is a saying that applies here. *It is not possible to fix a real problem by just changing one thing.* For sure, I'm talking in general principle here. Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! You mean the Defense contractors and beneficiaries of huge industrial and agricultural subsidies? Sure! but wait, not banks and insurance companies? Them too. Why not ban all corporations? No, wait, we might need them Rehabilitating them to be sub-human entities rather than super-human would be a good start. A corporation is mainly a way for wealthy people to cheat capitalism. 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/-/9eqZtG7LY_AJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:02:49 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 7:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: What about all of the other possible theories of history? This series isn't a theory, it's just recent US history focusing on the deeper background of the people involved. He shows how even the generals disagreed with Truman that dropping the A-Bombs was necessary, how the Russians did the bulk of the fighting against the Nazis (they lost like 23,000,000 people to our 418,500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). Which is ironic considering that right wingers now try to claim that Hitler was some kind of Marxist (of course the opposite is true). What makes Stone's theory any more credible than my own? Is it because he is famous? Famous people are well known to be just as wrong as any one else. There's no theory. Watch the series sometime. Craig, My point is that there is no such a thing as an objective account of history. Of course. Oliver Stone pretty much says that too. Any account of the history of the world, where many people and things are involved in many processes at many diverse levels, will be biased because one can only take a point of view that generates an integrates sense. The universe is not simple and we should never expect that any simple narative of it is the whole story. Oliver Stone is an artist, not a divine teller of truths. Stop the idolatry, please. Who is idolazing? I'd give the show a B+ to B most of the time. It's not perfect, but it's got a lot of things in there that I had vaguely swimming around in my mind put into a timeline-episode context that makes it easier to think about. For the record, I's say that Stone's stuff is merely adequate a lot of the time. He's no Kubrick, but he tries hard and I believe he thinks he's being honest. 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/-/LQXktT7FjsgJ. 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/17/2012 12:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 7:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:44:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Control them to do what? Build libraries instead of liquidating them to add a number in some billionaire's bank account? Libraries full of books that no one can read? Why can't people read? Education institutions that don't really educate. Nice idea! There is a saying that applies here. /It is not possible to fix a real problem by just changing one thing./ For sure, I'm talking in general principle here. ok Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! You mean the Defense contractors and beneficiaries of huge industrial and agricultural subsidies? Sure! but wait, not banks and insurance companies? Them too. Why not ban all corporations? No, wait, we might need them Rehabilitating them to be sub-human entities rather than super-human would be a good start. A corporation is mainly a way for wealthy people to cheat capitalism. Sure, and make lots of nice stuff cheaply too. ;-) -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/17/2012 12:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My point is that there is no such a thing as an objective account of history. Of course. Oliver Stone pretty much says that too. Any account of the history of the world, where many people and things are involved in many processes at many diverse levels, will be biased because one can only take a point of view that generates an integrates sense. The universe is not simple and we should never expect that any simple narative of it is the whole story. Oliver Stone is an artist, not a divine teller of truths. Stop the idolatry, please. Who is idolazing? I'd give the show a B+ to B most of the time. It's not perfect, but it's got a lot of things in there that I had vaguely swimming around in my mind put into a timeline-episode context that makes it easier to think about. For the record, I's say that Stone's stuff is merely adequate a lot of the time. He's no Kubrick, but he tries hard and I believe he thinks he's being honest. Ah, j/k. -- 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. Brent Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities. -- 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. Brent Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities. Sure they. They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for ordering the world. I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM' as being a person or not. If not, I guess you're just a computationalist. 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.
