intuition
intuition and 1p Intuition (philosophy), immediate (not inferred) a priori knowledge or experiential belief n�tu�i�tion [in-too-ish-uh?n, -tyoo-] noun 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. 2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way. 3. a keen and quick insight. 4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight. 5. Philosophy. a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object. b. any object or truth so discerned. c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer
Hi Telmo Menezes Presumably the brain works with analog, not digital, signals. But the redisplay of the brain image requires a digital image signal. How can that happen ? If the recponstructed brain image has no sync signal, how couold it display in a digital device ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 17:34:21 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer Hi Roger, Imagine a very simple brain that can recognise two things: a cat and a mouse. Furthermore, it can recognise if an object is still or in motion. So a possible perceptual state could be cat(still) + mouse(in motion). The visual cortex of this brain is complex enough to process the input of a normal human eye and convert it into these representations. It has a very simple memory that can store states and temporal precedence between states. For example: mouse(still) - cat(in motion) + mouse(still) - cat(still) + mouse(in motion) - cat(still) Through an MRI we read the activation level of neurons that somehow encode this sequence of states. An incredible amount of information is lost BUT it is possible to represent a visual scene that approximates the meanings of those states. In a regular VGA screen with a synch signal I show you an animation of a mouse standing still, a cat appearing and so on. Of course the cat may be quite different from what the brain actually perceived. But it is also recognised as a cat by the brain, it produces an equivalent state so it's good enough. Now imagine the brain can encode more properties about objects. Is is big or small? Furry? Dark or light? Now imagine the brain can encode more information about precedence. Was it a long time ago? Just now? Aeons ago? And so on and so on until you get to a point where the reconstructed video is almost like what the brain saw. No synch signal. On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Yes, but the display they show wouldn't work if there were no sync signal embedded in it. There's nothing in the brain to provide that, so they must have. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 09:33:30 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes. I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling. Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync signal. A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality, not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual representations is always present, no matter what technology you use. Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such technologies. The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. Why not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be easily translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all contact between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait a couple million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync signal, who knows? Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous, asleep, solving a math problem of painting? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55
Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer
Hi Telmo Menezes The electronics presumably requires a digital signal. But the brain presumably uses analog signals. And there is the raster line and sync signal problem. There is the digital pixel problem, which uses only 3 colors: blue,green,red. How can all of this work ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 19:24:24 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer Hi Craig, On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 6:19:33 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg ? Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people here know something I don't about the authors? The paper doesn't claim that images from the brain have been decoded, Yes it does, right in the abstract: To demonstrate the power of our approach, we also constructed a Bayesian decoder [8] by combining estimated encoding models with a sampled natural movie prior. The decoder provides remarkable reconstructions of the viewed movies. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900937-7 ? but the sensational headlines imply that is what they did. Starting with UC Berkeley itself: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ ? The video isn't supposed to be anything but fabricated. ALL videos are fabricated in that sense. ? It's a muddle of YouTube videos superimposed upon each other according to a Bayesian probability reduction. Yes, and the images you see on your computer screen are just a matrix of molecules artificially made to align in a certain way so that the light being emitted behind them arrives at your eyes in a way that resembles the light emitted by some real world scene that it is meant to be represented. ? Did you think that the video was coming from a brain feed like a TV broadcast? It is certainly not that at all. Nice straw man + ad hominem you did there! ? ? The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. Where are the encoded images decoded into what we actually see? In the computer that runs the Bayesian algorithm. ? ? These images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to creativity, pattern matching and so on. But if you believe that the brain's neural network is a computer responsible for our cognitive processes, the information must be stores there, physically, somehow. That is the assumption, but it is not necessarily a good one. The problem is that information is only understandable in the context of some form of awareness - an experience of being informed. A machine with no user can only produce different kinds of noise as there is nothing ultimately to discern the difference between a signal and a non-signal. Sure. That's why the algorithm has to be trained with known videos. So it can learn which brain activity correlates with what 3p accessible images we can all agree upon. ? It's horribly hard to decode what's going on in the brain. Yet every newborn baby learns to do it all by themselves, without any sign of any decoding theater. Yes. The newborn baby comes with the genetic material that generates the optimal decoder. ? ? These researchers thought of a clever shortcut. They expose people to a lot of images and record come measures of brain activity in the visual cortex. Then they use machine learning to match brain states to images. Of course it's probabilistic and noisy. But then they got a video that actually approximates the real images. You might get the same result out of precisely mapping the movements of the eyes instead. Maybe. That's not where they took the information from though. They took it from the visual cortex. ? What they did may have absolutely nothing to do with how the brain encodes or experiences images, no more than your Google history can approximate the shape of your face. Google history can only approximate the shape of my face if there is a correlation between the two. In which case my Google history is, in fact, also a description of the shape of my face. ? ? So there must be some way to decode brain activity into images. The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to generate the raster lines. Neither does reality, but we somehow manage to show a representation of it on tv, right? What human beings see on TV simulates one optical environment with another optical environment. You need to be a human being
Re: Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
Hi meekerdb Picking and choosing can sometimes be incorrect. When you try to find the meaning of a verse from the Bible, ideally you should find the meaning from the Bible as a whole. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 17:56:48 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/7/2013 4:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb There are some errors in fact in the Bible, but IMHO it is inerrant with regard to faith and practice. By inerrant, I mean that it is completely consistent along those lines. You have to take it as a whole. By which you really mean that one must use their own moral sense to pick and choose a reasonable subset of ethical advice, which they can then claim that God commands. Brent The Israelites were all waiting anxiously at the foot of the mountain, knowing that Moses had had a tough day negotiating with God over the Commandments. Finally a tired Moses came into sight. I've got some good news and some bad news, folks, he said. The good news is that I got Him down to ten. The bad news is that adultery's still banned. -- 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi meekerdb Even bacteria have some miniscule amount of intelligence, which is IMHO the ability to autonomously make choices. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 17:58:06 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/7/2013 4:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: But natural selection implies some form of intelligence, You don't understand evolution. 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: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi meekerdb Mathematical structures such as quantum fields are not in spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 18:04:22 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/7/2013 4:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Quantum fields are nonphysical, since they do not exist in spacetime. ?? Where did you learn quantum field theory (I want to be sure not to hire any engineers or physicists from there). 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: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Hi meekerdb Russell was a brilliant logician, but that's all he was. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 19:48:04 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,People are more unwilling to give up the word ?od? than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood? 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among possible other things). Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist ( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is entirely ontologically justified in pure math). Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists. So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma (such as materialism) any day. It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial. Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13 -- 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 . 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
Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance
Here's Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance http://www.ditext.com/russell/leib1.html#3 Every proposition has a subject and a predicate. A subject may have predicates which are qualities existing at various times. (Such a subject is called a substance.) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:23:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Presumably the brain works with analog, not digital, signals. You are both missing the more important issue - signals cannot be decoded in the brain. It's tempting to think that is possible because we are living in a world of images on screens and in print, but these collections of pixels only cohere as images through our visual awareness, not through optical properties. Try thinking of any of the other senses instead - if instead of images, we want to peer into the decoding of digitized or analog signals associated with the smell of bacon cooking, would we set up a universal kitchen which would mix the aromatic compounds to match the tiny kitchen in the olfactory cortex? Can you not see that you still need a feeling, sensing person to smell the bacon or see the images? Otherwise there is no 'decoding'. The fundamental problem is *always* going to be the Explanatory Gap. When we talk about signals, we are already talking about awareness. The idea of a brain that can only recognize some small number of objects and tell if they are moving or not is the level of recognition which already exists on the level of an atom. T-cells recognize other cells and molecules. These kinds of sensitivities do not require a brain, they are everywhere, on every level. 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/-/qG1kmMDadnAJ. 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 paranormal prediction for the next year
On Saturday, January 5, 2013 8:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/5/2013 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. No, it's harder because you can tell when you've failed. Brent It's not hard for me to tell at all. If you understand how and why experience exists, then you have succeeded. If you have convinced yourself that the problem isn't real or important then you have failed. 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/-/1OBgGc5Ass0J. 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among possible other things). Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist ( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is entirely ontologically justified in pure math). Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists. So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma (such as materialism) any day. It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extractedfrombrainsviaacomputer
Hi Craig Weinberg Exactly. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:23:56 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extractedfrombrainsviaacomputer On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:23:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Presumably the brain works with analog, not digital, signals. You are both missing the more important issue - signals cannot be decoded in the brain. It's tempting to think that is possible because we are living in a world of images on screens and in print, but these collections of pixels only cohere as images through our visual awareness, not through optical properties. Try thinking of any of the other senses instead - if instead of images, we want to peer into the decoding of digitized or analog signals associated with the smell of bacon cooking, would we set up a universal kitchen which would mix the aromatic compounds to match the tiny kitchen in the olfactory cortex? Can you not see that you still need a feeling, sensing person to smell the bacon or see the images? Otherwise there is no 'decoding'. The fundamental problem is *always* going to be the Explanatory Gap. When we talk about signals, we are already talking about awareness. The idea of a brain that can only recognize some small number of objects and tell if they are moving or not is the level of recognition which already exists on the level of an atom. T-cells recognize other cells and molecules. These kinds of sensitivities do not require a brain, they are everywhere, on every level. 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/-/qG1kmMDadnAJ. 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: [4DWorldx] Humble coin toss thrust to heart of multiverse debate
Anna, There is an ongoing discussion over on the google Everything list about Quantum Suicide, which is nearly equivalent to a coin toss. QS is proposed as a test of MWI- the Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics. In QS it depends essentially on a coin toss if an experimenter is either killed or survives in each of two worlds created by the coin toss. Anna's post below indicates that coin tosses are quantum events. A witness accompanies the experimenter. There is with each experiment a 50-50 chance of survival. The question is if this is a valid test of MWI? It turns out that the only way that MWI can work and predict known experimental results is if the measures of the various experiments known to the experimenter and the witness ahead of time are equivalent to the probability of each new parallel world created by a great number of experiments. If the MWI measures predicted by both the experimenter and the witness are equal to the collapse wave interpretation, then MWI is just another interpretation with no chance of distinguishing one interpretation from another experimentally. That is the standard perspective. I disagree and maintain that after 2 million experiments: in which the experimenter and a witness survive in one world; and another witness and a dead experimenter are created in a created orthogonal world; the surviving experimenter and witness in the final experiment would know to 5 sigma that MWI was/is correct. But that is a tiny number compared to the 2 million witnesses that do not have that information at the 5 sigma level and would have a minuscule effect on belief thru-out the multiverse. However, if the experiments were to continue another 2 million times, then 2 million new witnesses would know that MWI is correct at the 5 sigma level. So by then half of the multiverse knows MWI is correct. That is, at that point in time, there are 2 million parallel/orthogonal worlds where the witness cannot distinguish MWI from collapse theory at the 5 sigma level. But after 4 million experiments there are an equal number of witnesses along with a dead experimenter in 2 million worlds where the witness can distinguish MWI from collapse at the 5 sigma level. Eventually with continued experiments, most of the multiverse will believe in MWI. If that does not make sense, you are not alone. Richard On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Anna panth...@mail.com wrote: ** Humble coin toss thrust to heart of multiverse debate - 02 January 2013 by *Jacob Aron*http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Jacob+Aron - Magazine issue 2898 http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2898. *Subscribe and save*http://subscribe.newscientist.com/bundles.aspx?prom=6005intcmp=SUBS-nsarttoppromcode=6005 - For similar stories, visit the *Cosmology*http://www.newscientist.com/topic/cosmologyTopic Guide WHY is there a 1 in 2 chance of getting a tail when you flip a coin? It may seem like a simple question, but the humble coin toss is now at the heart of a lively row about the multiverse. At stake is the ability to calculate which, of an infinite number of parallel universes, is the one that we inhabit. The debate comes in the wake of a paper posted online a couple of weeks ago by cosmologists Andreas Albrecht http://albrecht.ucdavis.edu/ and Daniel Phillips, both at the University of California, Davis. They argue that conventional probability theory, the tool we all use to quantify uncertainty in the real world, has no basis in reality ( arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953). Instead, all problems in probability are ultimately about quantum mechanics. Every single time we use probability successfully, that use actually comes from quantum mechanics, says Albrecht. This controversial claim traces back to the uncertainty principle, which says that it is impossible to know both a quantum particle's exact position and its momentum. Albrecht and Phillips think particle collisions within gases and liquids amplify this uncertainty to the scale of everyday objects. This, they say, is what drives all events, including the outcome of a coin toss. Conventional probability - which says the outcome simply arises from two equally likely possibilities - is just a useful proxy for measuring the underlying quantum uncertainties. In the case of a coin toss, quantum uncertainty in the position of neurotransmitter molecules in the nervous system of a coin flipper might translate into an uncertainty in the number of times a coin turns in the air before being caught, ultimately determining whether it is a head or a tail, the pair suggest. In a back-of-the-envelope calculation that used estimates for coin size, speed and neurotransmitter uncertainty, the pair were able to show that this quantum sequence of events could give the same probability of throwing a head or a tail as the conventional calculation - one-half. They say this supports their argument that conventional probability is just
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Theism, like atheism, is unprovable. Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial definition of you. Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence of anything real. We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such. Bruno but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me. 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 . 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.
Wave collapse and consciousness
Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among possible other things). Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist ( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is entirely ontologically justified in pure math). Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Sunday, January 6, 2013 1:24:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Even people who have no sense of humor can deduce that other people do have it, Would they if only 0.001% of the population had a sense of humor? Yes, because unlike psi it would be easily repeatable, if one person who claimed to have a sense of humor laughed and said that was a very good joke it is statistically very likely (although not certain) that another person who also claimed to have a sense of humor would make the same noise, Why? Do all people who have a good sense of humor laugh at the same jokes? but the sound of laughter would not be heard when the vast majority who don't even understand what the word humor means heard the joke. Chalmers was just trying to make the point that it is a whole different order of difficult. The easy problem is quantitatively difficult, but progress is inevitable with applied effort. The hard problem is qualitatively difficult, so that not only is progress not inevitable, but it is not necessarily a realistic possibility. And that's what doesn't add up. As you say solving the easy problem is inevitable, and solving it would be of some philosophical interest and earn its discoverer several trillion dollars as a bonus, and yet nobody on this list casually spins theories about how to solve it. In contrast although success is not guaranteed and there would be no financial bonus in solving the hard problem every dilettante has their own theory about it and some, such as yourself, have even claimed to have already solved it. Solving the easy problem doesn't necessarily require a theory, just access to expensive laboratory equipment, hospitals, political influence, etc. It's like the Human Genome Project - the theory is not the problem, it just takes a lot of cataloging and correlating requiring huge amounts of time. The reason for this is that a hard problem theory doesn't have to actually do anything, but a easy problem theory most certainly does. Any hard problem theory will work just fine, any at all, For example? but the wrong easy problem theory will send a start-up company into bankruptcy. So the end result is that being a hard problem theorist is ridiculously easy but being a easy problem theorist is devilishly hard, and that's why armchair philosophers concentrate on the one and not the other. Building 100ft sculptures of people's cats out of toothpicks would be devilishly hard and profitable too. Why does that matter? I don't understand this theme of one-upsmanship. I don't see a contest between the easy and hard problem or between computer or human superiority. You apparently do though. Everything seems to boil down to some variation of 'My assumptions are justified because winners win with winning assumptions, and winning always wins... and don't forget the winning.' Genius and madness are notoriously close. There is a bit of madness in many geniuses, but most madmen have no trace of genius whatsoever because madness is a much more common phenomenon than genius. Tesla was a genius and a crackpot, but for every Tesla there is a mole of pure unadulterated crackpots. I think the ratio is less extreme than you might think. Anyone who is crazy has access, by definition, to perspectives that the majority do not. Genius is the ability to use those sensitivities to some greater understanding, and with luck, innovation. Most people in a psych ward are not geniuses, but I would guess that particularly among some kinds of mental illness, there is a disproportionately high level of intelligence. If it weren't for crackpots though, we would never likely be tempted to explore new areas. [...] we cannot afford for a tiny fraction of the population to deviate from the herd. I say that increasing that number 10 fold could only help. Yeah, all the problems of the world come from the fact that there just aren't enough loonies running around. Loonies have never been a source of oppression to me. It always been the fearful, conformist people who have caused problems in my life. Why doesn't some respectable non-crackpot reproduce Sheldrake's experiments and prove him wrong? They have, For example? but like any card caring member of the crackpot guild being proven wrong has absolutely no effect on Sheldrake's behavior or that of his fans. If someone has proved Sheldrake wrong, I would be interested in reading about it. Craig John K Clark -- 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/-/aCHZUfAhrU0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Hi John Clark. God so far has proven his existence to nobody, unless subjectively (spiritually), primarily because God is subjective, not objective. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:56:46 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough wrote: Theism, like atheism, is unprovable. Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial definition of you. Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence of anything real. We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such. Bruno but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me. 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. 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: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
Hi Brent, On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/7/2013 5:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. Negative, from German perspective: Nazi as adherent to NSDAP (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) so national socialist german worker's party wrote in their constitution that corporations potentially pose a threat to the state and have to thus be merged with state force to facilitate common good. This was done not only to build and develop weapons, but to build the A1 freeway, on which yours truly traveled south today. Don't know how Japan handled it, but imagine that it would've run along similar lines. High efficiency, high productivity, lowers unemployment, automatically restrains budding monopolies... all the kind of things the west proclaims to want today; even though history should at some point teach us what this means, we don't seem to get it or don't want to. Nazism was not Fascism. It borrowed from Fascism but it added mystic racism, Hitler cult, and genocide. Brent Didn't imply that. Much less I'd say... if someone's wearing a Mussolini corporate state control merger fascism-pin, as implied by your quote of Mussolini, then it doesn't matter to me which other pins, mystical or belief (what was that difference again?) based, that person wears: It would make a difference to me. A fascist just has a bad idea about the relation of the state, the corporation and the individual. A nazi is a racist who believes that there is a superior Aryan race which should rule over all other people and that there are inferior races that should be exterminated. Sure, but then you miss bidirectional implication between the two, which you don't, when you comment on extremism in the other thread. Not a simple matter of keeping ideologies seperate, as it's clear Italy and Japan were constitutionally racist at the period in question because you simply always need to pin your extreme state-corporate merger idea to some ideal: nationalist, religious etc. Consequently, you need to construct out-group narratives as inferior, impure, degenerate foes to rid ourselves off + messianic party leaders, games, sports heroes and such since antique. To some weaker or stronger extent, take your pick, like the drug war, terror, Russians in cold war and so on. Extremism taken literally and held over periods of time in any large scale political package, be it left, right, religious, mystical, green carries the same fundamentalist idiocy in its wake that leads to a lot of pain for power's sake. Put simply, it doesn't matter what it clothes itself in. In fact, falling prey to the different guises, in the sense you emphasize differentiation is perhaps even harmful: we should always recognize each other and the world around us when extremely reductionist statements are made by uhm... highly enthusiastic agents/interest. Differentiation leaves place for people to argue: Yeah well, this time is different... extraordinary measures justify etc. Result is always... and difference is more a matter of degree, more than narrative or beliefs masking power grabs. Difference lies more in how many people had to die and suffer this time; rather than taking the ideological bs seriously outside of gauging historically how they framed problems we face and will be facing. they are
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone. How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly separating the information and data from opinion and beliefs? If you have, please share and if not: this is straw man, that can't even stand on its pole. I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna land; it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and can't complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted, with McKenna that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things become distasteful in your words. Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why would you listen to some guy that takes that distasteful drug advocate seriously? PGC -- 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means until we understand what the opposite stands for. a sorta duality that math may be based on that may even be the basis of existence of how something can come from nothing. RR a semantic toe On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. 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: Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance
Roger, Thank you for this post an esp for the link to 'Russell on Leibniz'. Richard On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Here's Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance http://www.ditext.com/russell/leib1.html#3 Every proposition has a subject and a predicate. A subject may have predicates which are qualities existing at various times. (Such a subject is called a substance.) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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: Science is a religion by itself.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. Conservative Christianity is deplorable in a great number of ways but it is superior to liberal theology in one important regard, it states that it might be a good idea if words actually mean something. 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: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On 06 Jan 2013, at 02:47, meekerdb wrote: On 1/5/2013 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. No, it's harder because you can tell when you've failed. I guess you meant it's harder because you CAN'T tell when you've failed. But this is theory dependent. With comp + classical theory of knowledge (recover by Theatetus applied on Gödel's beweisbar arithmetical predicate) you get a whole theory of qualia+quanta. Evidences from empirical quanta on it does give evidence on the theory of qualia (the hard problem), and refutation by quanta refute automatically the qualia theory, and so it can be shown wrong. 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: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On 1/8/2013 6:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 5, 2013 8:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/5/2013 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. No, it's harder because you can tell when you've failed. Brent It's not hard for me to tell at all. If you understand how and why experience exists, then you have succeeded. And you do because you've put a label on it, sense. You're right, that is easy. Brent If you have convinced yourself that the problem isn't real or important then you have failed. 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/-/1OBgGc5Ass0J. 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Theism, like atheism, is unprovable. Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial definition of you. Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence of anything real. You are using a narrow conception of 'proof', i.e. logical proof. But there is also empirical proof and legal 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such. If you cannot know anything except what you can prove in mathematics then you never know anything except tautologies of the form If x then x. Brent Bruno but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me. 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 mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto: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/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: GOD means the reality in which you believe. Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark method and it only takes 4 simple steps! STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may be. STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. John K Clark Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? 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 paranormal prediction for the next year
On 1/8/2013 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jan 2013, at 02:47, meekerdb wrote: On 1/5/2013 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. No, it's harder because you can tell when you've failed. I guess you meant it's harder because you CAN'T tell when you've failed. No, I meant the easy problem is harder because you can tell when you've failed to explain intelligence: You use your hypothetical explanation to make something that should be intelligent. When it acts stupid, you've failed. Brent But this is theory dependent. With comp + classical theory of knowledge (recover by Theatetus applied on Gödel's beweisbar arithmetical predicate) you get a whole theory of qualia+quanta. Evidences from empirical quanta on it does give evidence on the theory of qualia (the hard problem), and refutation by quanta refute automatically the qualia theory, and so it can be shown wrong. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 -- 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: [4DWorldx] Humble coin toss thrust to heart of multiverse debate
On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Anna panth...@mail.com wrote: Humble coin toss thrust to heart of multiverse debate 02 January 2013 by Jacob Aron Magazine issue 2898. Subscribe and save For similar stories, visit the Cosmology Topic Guide WHY is there a 1 in 2 chance of getting a tail when you flip a coin? It may seem like a simple question, but the humble coin toss is now at the heart of a lively row about the multiverse. At stake is the ability to calculate which, of an infinite number of parallel universes, is the one that we inhabit. The debate comes in the wake of a paper posted online a couple of weeks ago by cosmologists Andreas Albrecht and Daniel Phillips, both at the University of California, Davis. They argue that conventional probability theory, the tool we all use to quantify uncertainty in the real world, has no basis in reality (arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953). Instead, all problems in probability are ultimately about quantum mechanics. Every single time we use probability successfully, that use actually comes from quantum mechanics, says Albrecht. I have given the following exercise some time ago. How long need you to shake a certain volume containing a dice to be sure (by the SWE) that you will end up with a six outcomes/branches wave solution, having reasonably equivalent measure? It is true that the Heisenberg Uncertainties will add up, but to get the 1/6 realized quantum mechanically, I think you have to shake them during a non negligible time. But I do agree with the author above that even if you don't shake the dice a lot, you will get QM branches with all outcomes (but some more than others). This is trivial, as there is also a branch where the dice transform into a white rabbit (but with a very low QM measure). All that are open problem in computer science (once we decide to work in the comp theory). 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: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. Are you saying there is nothing without the probe? This can be refuted in some quantum experience where interference comes from the absence of a probe on a path. IN QM, even the (amplitude of) probability is physically real. And what is a particles if not a singularity in a field (as in quantum field theory). I agree with you, at some other level. Yes, the physical reality is only a cosmic GSM to help localizing ourselves in a (vaster) reality. Yes, the physical is a map. But this concerns both particles and forces/fields. You might still be too much materialist for comp, Roger. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among possible other things). Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist ( (which
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: unlike psi it would be easily repeatable, if one person who claimed to have a sense of humor laughed and said that was a very good joke it is statistically very likely (although not certain) that another person who also claimed to have a sense of humor would make the same noise, Why? Do all people who have a good sense of humor laugh at the same jokes? Pretty much, certainly the probability of hearing the sound of laughter is much higher than you'd expect from pure randomness, otherwise it would be impossible for professional comedians to make a living. There are professional fortune tellers but they make their living by fooling the stupid not mother nature. If psi is a real phenomenon I don't understand why state lotteries nevertheless consistently manage make money. a hard problem theory doesn't have to actually do anything, but a easy problem theory most certainly does. Any hard problem theory will work just fine, any at all, For example? Only one thing in the universe can produce consciousness, the left big toe on a size 12 foot. This theory is perfectly consistent with everything I have ever observed about consciousness. By the way, I happen to ware size 12 shoes and still have 10 toes. Building 100ft sculptures of people's cats out of toothpicks would be devilishly hard Yes. and profitable too. No. Why does that matter? Beats the hell out of me. I don't see a contest between the easy and hard problem If you have 2 problems to solve you don't see the value of solving the easy one first and then using the wisdom gained from that solution to solve the harder problem? Everything seems to boil down to some variation of 'My assumptions are justified because winners win with winning assumptions, and winning always wins... and don't forget the winning.' Very well put. 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: Question: Robotic truth
On 1/8/2013 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote: In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary. At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary. But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level. Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a concrete physical machine. This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow). When the physical is just a certain computation, then however that computation is realized instantiates the physical. The UTM can't distinguish the emulation because the emulation really is instantiating the physical (although it may also be necessary that mind be instantiated also). 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: Question: Robotic truth
At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic with no need for further calculations in a block universe. At a higher level it is analog in the realm of quantum waves and fields including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/fermions yanniru. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote: In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary. At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary. But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level. Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a concrete physical machine. This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow). 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: Question: Robotic truth
2013/1/8 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic with no need for further calculations in a block universe. Then it is indistinguishable from a contiuous or discrete mathematical manifold of some kind. This manifold is anthropically selected by the mind, and the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind at the macroscopic level (or microscopic-experimental level) is what makes reality. This makes the latter a product of the mind which created spots of conscience and reality in the chaos of everything that exist in the inexistence. And what is in this inexistent chaos? The question is why this At a higher level it is analog in the realm of quantum waves and fields including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/fermions yanniru. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote: In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary. At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary. But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level. Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a concrete physical machine. This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow). 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Question: Robotic truth
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/1/8 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic with no need for further calculations in a block universe. Then it is indistinguishable from a contiuous or discrete mathematical manifold of some kind. This manifold is anthropically selected by the mind, and the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind at the macroscopic level (or microscopic-experimental level) is what makes reality. This makes the latter a product of the mind which created spots of conscience and reality in the chaos of everything that exist in the inexistence. And what is in this inexistent chaos? The question is why this A mind is not needed in a Block Universe following MWI if the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind at the macroscopic level (or microscopic-experimental level) is included, as convoluted as that sounds. richard Perhaps the analog level occupies most of the mind right up to EM waves. and all the way down to the digital bottom layer. At a higher level it is analog in the realm of quantum waves and fields including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/fermions yanniru. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote: In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary. At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary. But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level. Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a concrete physical machine. This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow). 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods. Then later he evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. Yes, it must be sad for theists who long for the good old days of the Aztecs, the Holy Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the unifying force of The Cultural Revolution,... A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization. That´s why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:37:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/8/2013 6:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 5, 2013 8:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/5/2013 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. No, it's harder because you can tell when you've failed. Brent It's not hard for me to tell at all. If you understand how and why experience exists, then you have succeeded. And you do because you've put a label on it, sense. You're right, that is easy. Because I understand that the universe can only be experience. Without experience, there is no universe unless you arbitrarily take naive mechanism on faith. Nothing which is experienced within the universe can account for experience itself, and nothing can be imagined. To the contrary, that we see through our own eyes, hear through our own ears, think with our own minds is the only thing that cannot be denied or explained. Saying that experience is sense is my way of implying that it is not human consciousness what the universe is, but rather there are many different qualities of perception and participation enfolded and juxtaposed throughout and that there isn't anything that is not an aspect of sense. Craig Brent If you have convinced yourself that the problem isn't real or important then you have failed. 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/-/1OBgGc5Ass0J. 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 -- 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/-/O_1CmGNu78EJ. 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 paranormal prediction for the next year
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:27:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: unlike psi it would be easily repeatable, if one person who claimed to have a sense of humor laughed and said that was a very good joke it is statistically very likely (although not certain) that another person who also claimed to have a sense of humor would make the same noise, Why? Do all people who have a good sense of humor laugh at the same jokes? Pretty much, certainly the probability of hearing the sound of laughter is much higher than you'd expect from pure randomness, otherwise it would be impossible for professional comedians to make a living. There are professional fortune tellers but they make their living by fooling the stupid not mother nature. If psi is a real phenomenon I don't understand why state lotteries nevertheless consistently manage make money. What's the difference between people who laugh at comedians and people who are counseled by psychics? There are more astrologers than astronomers, maybe that means that some people just have sensitivities that others lack? I would think it would be strange if there wasn't such variation. Some people are stronger in logic, some engineering, some poetry or painting, why wouldn't some people have a more developed intuition about people and their lives? Personally I don't trust others to counsel me in general, and even less so any random professional psychic, but I don't doubt that psychics have helped and hurt people as much as other kinds of therapists (who I would also avoid in general). a hard problem theory doesn't have to actually do anything, but a easy problem theory most certainly does. Any hard problem theory will work just fine, any at all, For example? Only one thing in the universe can produce consciousness, the left big toe on a size 12 foot. This theory is perfectly consistent with everything I have ever observed about consciousness. By the way, I happen to ware size 12 shoes and still have 10 toes. That's not a hard problem theory, that's an easy problem theory. It doesn't explain why there is consciousness in the first place. It doesn't matter whether consciousness appears in brain tissue for no reason or your big toe for no reason. They both come from the same stem cell anyhow, and there's really nothing very special about neurons. Building 100ft sculptures of people's cats out of toothpicks would be devilishly hard Yes. and profitable too. No. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/italy-rich-cat-tommaso_n_1143022.html I think you might find enough clients in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range to pay the rent. I guess it depends on the price of toothpicks. Why does that matter? Beats the hell out of me. I don't see a contest between the easy and hard problem If you have 2 problems to solve you don't see the value of solving the easy one first and then using the wisdom gained from that solution to solve the harder problem? Why would every person on Earth have to work on one first and not the other? Should we stop all space exploration until after we cure cancer? Everything seems to boil down to some variation of 'My assumptions are justified because winners win with winning assumptions, and winning always wins... and don't forget the winning.' Very well put. ; ) John K Clark -- 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/-/iEiUCbDjr7IJ. 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: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/8/2013 4:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. Dear Brent, Seriously: Atheism is a group of related religions. An atheist when hear his favourite author fire the same neurons that are fired when the most religious hear his televangelist: A group of ecologist hearing Al Gore have similar experiences than when a group of nuns hear the Pope. Patently false, since if you ask one of the ecologists what Al Gore said you will get a different answer than if you ask one of the nuns what the Pope said. If you dont´t accept that same physical phenomena in the brain are associated with the same mental experiences then we have a problem. You have a problem because above you just assert that the same physical phenomena were produced in two different brains by two different experiences. The same physical and mental phenomena can not be two nor three different things. There is a common circuitry in the brain that is working in a church, in a foatball match,, in a concert in the fans of a rock band. And there's a similar blood supply and all the same kinds of atoms and molecules. But there's also something different, otherwise the ecologist and nun would give the same report. in the discourse of a totalitarian dictator. Therefore is a single phenomenon with different names. We can not have a circuit for rock concerts, other for admiring a leader, other for the Pope. Other for Carlos Marx. One for God and another for holding the super-ego that repeat in our mid the words of of our dead father. or another circuit that make us to remember with stasis that famous scientist that we try to emulate. Do you understand? I understand you're trying to slip by an obviously fallacious argument that since two different things can evoked similar emotions they must be the same thing. The atheist like any other person is subject to the same laws of any other religion. It can be a firm believer, or unbeliever, nihilist or exceptic about dialectic materialism or the global warming. It can be comforted for their strength of his principles or repudiated by their fellows for their doubt about the core beliefs in the same way that a Muslim can experience the same about Allah. No, an atheist is person who doesn't believe theism, the religion that claims there is an all powerful supernatural person who created the world, who rewards and punishes, and answers prayers. If religions were TV channels then atheism would be OFF. Brent Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men. --- Francis Bacon -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
On Jan 7, 6:42 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Science is a religion by itself. Why? Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him to do. Why do you even bother to invent Him? John K Clark I don't need ' to invent Him.' He and His Souls are hidden in the formulas == socratus -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
On Jan 7, 7:53 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Theism, like atheism, is unprovable. Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me. John K Clark God is Atheist by His nature. == -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
On Jan 8, 1:48 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,People are more unwilling to give up the word 'God' than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood Brent In beginning was Word. And the Word was written by the formula: T=0K. === -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Russell was a brilliant logician, but that's all he was. Brent To have logical mind is very good. But our brain sometime works unconscious. =. -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
Quantum electrodynamics + Biology = Who am I ? ==. Cells make copies of themselves. Different cells make different copies of themselves. Cells come in all shapes and sizes. Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! ) and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own geometrical form from zygote to a child. Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you. Cells they are you ( !? ) This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view. # Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’ But this explanation is not complete. Cells have an energy / electrical potential. Cells have an electromagnetic field. Therefore we need to say: ‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’ ===. Is this formulation correct? Of course it is correct. Why? Because: Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity) refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields produced by living cells, tissues or organisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism What does it mean? It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields. It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances: matter and electromagnetic fields. And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter The idea of book - the interaction between light ( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange. He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘ / page 10. / # Once again: 1. Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you. 2. We cannot understand their interaction and therefore we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’ ==. Where does electromagnetic field come from ? =. In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t electromagnetic field ( em waves ) without Electron It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron The electron and the em waves they are physical reality Can evolution of consciousness begin on electron’s level? ==. Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe Electron takes important part in this work. # 1900, 1905 Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c. 1928 Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy: +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2. According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s energy is infinite: E= ∞ Questions. Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ? Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ? a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass b) Maxwell’s equations c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law e) Fermi-Dirac statistics. Nobody knows. . What is an electron ? Now nobody knows In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron All of them are problematical. We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics. But how can we trust them if we don’t know what is an electron ? . Ladies and Gentlemen ! Friends ! The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are. =. According to Pauli Exclusion Principle only one single electron can be in the atom. This electron reanimates the atom. This electron manages the atom. If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two) then this atom represents a Siamese twins. Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children. ( ! ) Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it. ( ! ) ==. Question: Can consciousness be introduced into physics? Electron gives the answer to this question. =. Brain and Electron. Human brain works on two levels: consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction between billions and billions neurons and electron). It can only mean that the state of neurons in these two situations is different. How can we understand these different states of neurons? How does the brain generate consciousness? We can understand this situation only on the quantum level, only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ? Nobody knows. Maybe therefore Michael Talbot wrote: ‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain - . . . .’ / Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’ page 160. by Michael Talbot./ # Conclusion: We are cells + Electron. ( ! ) We must understand not only the cells, brain but electron too. And when we understand the Electron we will know the Ultimate
