date:20130115

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

2013-01-15 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/15/2013 8:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
  Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life
 from their childhood to now?

>>> All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal
>>> it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our
>>> memories all the time.  How much of your current life are you recalling at
>>> any given moment?
>>>
>>> To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or
>>> someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological
>>> human.  When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans
>>> ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original
>>> biological human's life.
>>>
>>>
>>> But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of
>>> experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you
>>> distinguish one continuation from a another)
>>>
>>
>> I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile.  I've found only two
>> workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
>>
>> 1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
>> 2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
>>
>> The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother
>> getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to
>> nihilism.  I prefer the second one.
>>
>>
>>  I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.
>>
>
>
> The theory that you are everyone is not falsified by our experience (the
> examples I gave above show that one don't need to remember experiencing
> something in order to have experienced it or to be experiencing it (as a
> duplicate)).
>
>
> "To be experiencing it as a duplicate (but not remember)" is just
> double-talk.
>

Assume if MWI were true.  You would be experiencing those many other
worlds, but you (the Brent Meeker in this branch) can't recall those
experiences of those other worlds.

> It just trashes the concept of person, which it pretends to explain.
>

Science has shown that the particular matter and material are not important
for personal identity.  That leaves little else aside from memories, to
serve as a marker to preserve personal identity.  Therefore many people
people assume it must be the memories that are crucial to defining the
person.  But there are flaws with this.  If you are concentrating very hard
taking some test, it seems almost all your personal memories could be
disconnected from you and you wouldn't notice.  Who then is it that is
taking the test?  Also, consider that you were definitely alive and fully
conscious when you were experiencing the 14th bite of your breakfast 296
days ago, but you probably have no memory of it.  Who was it that was
conscious of that moment?

>   Do you think you could be a person without memory (ever known someone
> with severe Alzheimer's?).
>
>
Yes I think so.  Anyone who is conscious is a person and I don't see
memories as a requirement for awareness.  How do you define personhood?

>
>  Further, this theory makes makes fewer assumptions than the single-life
> theories.  Those theories contain an additional assumption that there is
> some process of selection which led to you being born as you and no one
> else.
>
>
> A sentence that made sense up until "as you...".
>

I was going to say "as Brent Meeker" but wanted my message to be general to
other readers of my post.

>
>
>
> What is your justification for adding this additional assumption when the
> theory itself explains why we can't recall the perspectives of other
> people?
>
>
> It doesn't explain it.
>

Your brain is not physically wired to other people's brains, so why, when I
ask Brent Meeker if he recalls experiencing what it is like to be me,
should Brent Meeker answer yes?  (Bear in mind from other examples memory
is no guarantee of what one has or hasn't experienced.  If you think you
can show that one must have a memory of something to have experienced it,
please provide some argument or proof.)

> In fact it denies there are other people (thus violating Bruno's religion).
>
>
I'll allow Bruno to comment on whether he thinks a universal self
contradicts CTM.

>
>  It is just like the collapse postulate, which you are also fond of.  It
> serves no useful purpose and needlessly complicates the theory.
>
>
> No useful purpose except making the theory useful.
>

Please explain how it does this.

Jason

-- 
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+uns

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

2013-01-15 Thread meekerdb


On 1/15/2013 8:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only 
life from
their childhood to now?


All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly 
immortal it
does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our 
memories all
the time.  How much of your current life are you recalling at any given 
moment?

To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or 
someone
else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human.  
When
this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it
continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological 
human's
life.


But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of 
experiences -
so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one
continuation from a another)


I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile.  I've found only two 
workable
definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:

1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.

The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother 
getting out
of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism.  I 
prefer the
second one.


I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.



The theory that you are everyone is not falsified by our experience (the examples I gave 
above show that one don't need to remember experiencing something in order to have 
experienced it or to be experiencing it (as a duplicate)).


"To be experiencing it as a duplicate (but not remember)" is just double-talk.  It just 
trashes the concept of person, which it pretends to explain.  Do you think you could be a 
person without memory (ever known someone with severe Alzheimer's?).


Further, this theory makes makes fewer assumptions than the single-life theories.  Those 
theories contain an additional assumption that there is some process of selection which 
led to you being born as you and no one else.


A sentence that made sense up until "as you...".



What is your justification for adding this additional assumption when the theory itself 
explains why we can't recall the perspectives of other people?


It doesn't explain it.  In fact it denies there are other people (thus violating Bruno's 
religion).


It is just like the collapse postulate, which you are also fond of.  It serves no useful 
purpose and needlessly complicates the theory.


No useful purpose except making the theory useful.

Brent



Jason


--
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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13



--
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

2013-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life
from
their childhood to now?

All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it
does't
mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time.
How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?

To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or
someone else
experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When
this life
ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as
the
someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.

But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences
- so if
the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one
continuation from a
another)

I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two workable
definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:

1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.

The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother getting out of
bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I prefer the second one.

I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.

Brent

the we continue. It is incoherent to say someone else experiences our
continuation.

Right, there is no "someone else" who experiences something that you do not.

Jason
--
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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13

--
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: The unpredictability of solar energy

2013-01-15 Thread meekerdb


On 1/15/2013 1:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Brent:
in my (learned) English I equate "lobbying" with "bribing" - it is by no means a 
'petitioning'.


Sure it is.  I have a lawyer friend who works in Washington as a lobbyist for small 
communication companies (telephone, TV cable,...).  He reads proposed legislation and 
evaluates how it will affect his clients and then goes and talks to regulators, 
Congressmen or their staffers about what bad consequences for his clients might arise and 
how it could be written better from their viewpoint.  He doesn't give them money, just 
information.  Could those small companies afford to send someone to Washington to evaluate 
every bit of proposed legislation or regulation.  I think you have a false image of 
lobbyists as some unified group.  In general there are a lot of opposing lobbyist, so 
although each one is no doubt biased, on the whole they can provide a fairly comprehensive 
picture.



You can step up the law enforcement against lawmakers etc. being BRIBED easily.


It is illegal to bribe lawmakers and it is enforced.  The problem is that they need money 
for election compaigns and contributing to those campaigns buys access at least and laws 
at worst.  On the other hand some very big expenditures in the last campaign went to the 
losing side - so it's not so clear what you can buy and what you can't.


Brent
"If you can't eat their food, drink their whiskey, fuck their women, and vote against 
them, you have no business being in politics."

--- Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh, on lobbyists


Unless, of course, if the enforcers get 'lobbied'.
I always wonder, if someone has b$3-4 assets and m$5-10 in yearly income, (that's a 
modest incredible ~0.2% return) why would it be so important to fight for more? Power??

JM


--
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.

2013-01-15 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>>  Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life
>> from their childhood to now?
>>
>>
> All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal
> it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our
> memories all the time.  How much of your current life are you recalling at
> any given moment?
>
> To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or
> someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological
> human.  When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans
> ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original
> biological human's life.
>
>
> But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of
> experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you
> distinguish one continuation from a another)
>

I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile.  I've found only two
workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:

1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.

The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother
getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to
nihilism.  I prefer the second one.


> the we continue.  It is incoherent to say someone else experiences our
> continuation.
>

 Right, there is no "someone else" who experiences something that you do
not.

Jason

-- 
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: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

2013-01-15 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/15/2013 9:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
 'that there is something fundamental that has particular properties 
is unscientific dogma'.


Then everything is unscientific. because no human knowledge can be 
expressed without unproven premises at the bottom.


Dogmas are not axioms neither premises, neither assumption, but the 
latter tend to become dogmas. This has been a constant in history no 
matter where it is applied.




Dear Alberto,

I argue that we can test the results of these dogmas, axioms and 
other assumed-to-be-true concepts by their logical consequences in 
models of the theories that can be formed from them. We just have to 
give up the idea that we can have absolute and infallible knowledge and 
accept partial and approximate notions of truth. We can see in the 
history of mathematics and science how is is the weakening of absolutist 
assumptions that has lead us to better knowledge of the world, so why do 
we keep kicking against the pricks?




2013/1/15 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>

'that there is something fundamental that has particular
properties is unscientific dogma'.




--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

2013-01-15 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/15/2013 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:14, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/13/2013 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/13/2013 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. My point is that if we assume computationalism it is 
necessarily so, and constructively so, so making that hypothesis 
testable.


We have the logical entaiment:

Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams -> 
physical reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness.


It is a generalization of "natural selection" operating from 
arithmetical truth, and in which the physical reality is itself the 
result of a self-selection events (the global first person 
indeterminacy).


This generalizes both Darwin and Everett, somehow.


But you stop one step too soon.

Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams -> 
physical reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness -> 
arithmetic.


That there is something fundamental is unscientific dogma.

Brent


Hi,

   I agree with Brent but would refine the point to say that 'that 
there is something fundamental that has particular properties is 
unscientific dogma'.


A dogma is only something that you cannot doubt or question.

Now something fundamental without properties is just meaningless. In 
my opinion. How could anything emerge from something without any 
properties?


Dear Bruno,

I am amazed at your inability to understand this very simple idea. 
It is just the generalization of what we see in the additive identity in 
arithmetic, X - X = 0. Have you not understood the idea that Russell 
Standish discusses in his book? The Nothing, that is the main idea in 
his book is a great example of the concept that I am using. When one 
imagines a substance that has *all possible properties*, there would 
always be properties within such that are equal and opposite to others 
such that they cancel each other out resulting in a neutral condition. 
This idea also occurs in numbers, where we to consider all of the 
positive numbers cancelling with the negative numbers to zero.
I use the process philosophy view of ontology and epistemology, but 
the same cancellation effects holds there as well; all processes have 
anti-processes that would cancel them.





You have not been able to explain this, up to now.


I will keep trying, but you need to consider that you have some 
kind of mental block such that the idea is invisible to you, or 
something. It is so utterly simple: Objects or processes cannot be 
considered to have specific and definite properties if there does not 
exist a means to distinguish those properties. Thus to be coherent in 
out ontological theories, we cannot assume that our primitives have 
specific properties innately. All properties are the result of the act 
of distinguishing, so this action is necessarily the most primitive.
This is consciousness at its most primitive, the action of 
distinguishing. I think that subconsciously you assume that the result 
of consciousness is prior to the existence of consciousness and thus 
imagine that numbers have specific properties innately. One might try to 
justify this reasoning by appeals to the idea of well foundedness and 
regularity, but as Zuckerman, Kaufmann and others have pointed out, 
consciousness requires non-well foundedness - self-reference - and so 
the appeal to well foundedness is maybe an intentional blindness.




--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

2013-01-15 Thread meekerdb


On 1/15/2013 8:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 15 Jan 2013, at 07:54, meekerdb wrote, to Jason:

Consider the quantum suicide experiment, or the Shrodinger's cat experiment from the 
perspective of the cat.  From the first-person perspective consciousness cannot end, 
regardless of how low the third-person probability may be.


But that's just a semantic trick.  The first-person perspective consciousness can still 
be finite.  Just because "the end" isn't part of the experience, it doesn't follow that 
the sequence of experiences continues indefinitely.  I've had my consciousness 
interrupted.  There was no mathematical/logical necessity that it resume.


Of course. But if you assume either QM, or comp, there are.


Comp maybe. QM doesn't require that consciousness continue.

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: The unpredictability of solar energy

2013-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2013 8:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote:

On 15 Jan 2013, at 00:38, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/14/2013 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Lobbying should be forbidden.

But it's just another name for "petitioning your government". Lobbyists
provide a
lot research and expertise to the legislative process,

Biased by personal interests.

Exactly. And let's not be naive here, the "research" is just to make the decision look
good in the public's eye. What really makes lobbying work is money. Lobbyists pays for
politicians careers.

so I don't think it is workable to just forbid them.

I did not say it was easy. Note that in Europa lobbying is more or less
forbidden,
but by lack of bipartition, we have often coalition which succeed in
defending some
special interest too.

We have to think to prevent democracy being swallowed by corporatism. When
Romney
said that "corporations" are people, I get the chilling ...

Another (counter-intuitive) measure against lobbyists and special interests groups would
be aggressive deregulation of everything. People who want to fight corporatism with
state regulation are trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline. Regulation is what they
thrive on. Regulation always end up granting the powerful groups all the liberties they
want and restricting the individual liberties even further.

Sometimes, but not always. Restrictions can be useful to to consumers and corporations,
e.g. FAA regulations for airline safety are not only good for the consumers but they make
the public feel that flying is safe which serves the airlines.

Let supermarkets sell rotten meat. Soon businesses will appear to tell you which meat is
ok to eat - because the demand will be there.

And who will pay them more - the consumer or the meat packing industry? I think consumers
have no trouble telling bad meat. The more typical problem is something like cigarette
smoking - the tobacco industry hired 'researchers' to obfuscate the issue for decades.
Now the same PR firms are hired by the oil and coal industry to obfuscate the problem of
global warming.

Brent

There certifiers would have an incentive to tell you the truth, because that's how
they'd make money. The government rarely has an incentive to tell us the truth.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13

Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland

2013-01-15 Thread John Mikes

Russell,
I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about
objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and
cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who -
maybe? - got it what 2p was.
My vocabulary allows me to consider what "I consider" (=1p) and I may
communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p
communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed
into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or
'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset.
No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance?
John Mikes

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> > Hi Russell Standish
> >
> > 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic
> logic.
> > It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however.
> >
> > The following equivalences should hold between comp
> > and Peirce's logical categories:
> >
> > 3p = Thirdness or III
> > 2p = Secondness or II
> > 1p = Firstness or I.
> >
> > Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic,
> > while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic
> > logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part.
> > So .
> >
> > Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes:
> >
> > http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html
> >
> >
> > "Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
> > positively and without reference to anything else.
> >
> > Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
> > with respect to a second but regardless of any third.
> >
> > Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
> > in bringing a second and third into relation to each other."
> > (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904)"
> >
>
> Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I
> cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that
> relate to subjectivity and objectivity.
>
> As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be.
>
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

2013-01-15 Thread John Mikes

Brent:
in my (learned) English I equate "lobbying" with "bribing" - it is by no
means a 'petitioning'. You can step up the law enforcement against
lawmakers etc. being BRIBED easily.
Unless, of course, if the enforcers get 'lobbied'.
I always wonder, if someone has b$3-4 assets and m$5-10 in yearly income,
(that's a modest incredible ~0.2% return) why would it be so important to
fight for more? Power??
JM

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 00:38, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 1/14/2013 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Lobbying should be forbidden.
>
>
> But it's just another name for "petitioning your government".  Lobbyists
> provide a lot research and expertise to the legislative process,
>
>
> Biased by personal interests.
>
>
>
> so I don't think it is workable to just forbid them.
>
>
> I did not say it was easy. Note that in Europa lobbying is more or less
> forbidden, but by lack of bipartition, we have often coalition which
> succeed in defending some special interest too.
>
> We have to think to prevent democracy being swallowed by corporatism. When
> Romney said that "corporations" are people, I get the chilling ...
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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.

2013-01-15 Thread meekerdb


On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from 
their
childhood to now?


All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean 
we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time.  How much of 
your current life are you recalling at any given moment?


To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else 
experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human.  When this life ends 
the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else 
who experienced that original biological human's life.


But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences - so if the 
sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another) 
the we continue.  It is incoherent to say someone else experiences our continuation.


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: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

2013-01-15 Thread meekerdb


On 1/15/2013 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/13/2013 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. My point is that if we assume computationalism it is necessarily so, and 
constructively so, so making that hypothesis testable.


We have the logical entaiment:

Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams -> physical 
reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness.


It is a generalization of "natural selection" operating from arithmetical truth, and 
in which the physical reality is itself the result of a self-selection events (the 
global first person indeterminacy).


This generalizes both Darwin and Everett, somehow.


But you stop one step too soon.

Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams -> physical 
reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness -> arithmetic.


I guess you mean:

Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams -> physical 
reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness -> human arithmetic.


No, I meant "arithmetic" - although somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  I think people invented 
arithmetic and so it makes a nice loop, I might even say a virtuous circle.  Something 
like being in that circle is what it means to exist and what excludes the 'white rabbits' 
and 'Boltzmann brains' which "exist" in the mathematical sense of satisfying some 
propositional function.


Brent






That there is something fundamental is unscientific dogma.


It should not. It is the main assumption of the rationalist. A dogma becomes a dogma 
when you are not *allow* to doubt it, only.


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: How large (program length ?) a Turing Machine would you need to think ?

2013-01-15 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

> How large (program length ?) a Turing Machine would you need to think ?
>
> Is complexity an issue with human thinking ?
>
> Is the brain's memory large enough to hold a lifetime of experiences ?
>
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-memory-capacity
>
> "The human brain consists of about one billion neurons.


Cats have about 1 billion neurons.  Humans have about 100 billion
(according to most sources I've encountered).


> Each neuron forms about
> 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion
> connections.
>

I've actually heard the number is closer to 10,000, with about an average
of 7,000 connections per neuron.  So there are about 10^15 connections.


> If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space
> would be a problem.
> You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space
> in an iPod or a USB
> flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories
> at a time,
> exponentially increasing the brain memory storage capacity to something
> closer to around
> 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes).


The above paragraph doesn't make much sense.  I think their mistake was
considering each connection to only equal one bit of memory, where as there
are probably many important attributes for each neural connection.  If each
connection required 1,000 bits to describe, then the amount of memory
necessary to store all important details regarding a brain's organization
would be 7000 * 100 billion * 1000 bits = 77.7 PB.  About 2,000 4 TB hard
drives.


> For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video
> recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three
> million hours of TV shows.
> You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300
> years to use up all that storage. "
>
>
I work for a large scale storage company.  Some of our customers today have
systems large enough to store an entire human brain (according to the above
estimates).  As computer power continues to double, we may in 15-25 years
have "thumb-drives" which could store an entire map of someone's brain.  It
would be much cheaper than cryonics. :-)

Jason

-- 
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.

2013-01-15 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> > Study the field, please.
>>
>
> I could study anthropology or I could study literature or I could study
> history but I can't study theology because there is nothing there to study.
> There is no field of inquiry called "theology", there is only glop.
>
> > In the greek sense you are a believer in God,
>>
>
> As I said before many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the
> idea of God but not the word"God".
>
>
> > and even close to Aristotle theology, once you believe in the existence
>> of primary matter,
>>
>
> I once asked you if they study primary matter at CERN and you emphatically
> said no, so I conclude that whatever "primary matter" is it's a colossal
> bore.
>
> > you are also more christian than the pope as you want God be defined by
>> the current common religion,
>>
>
> As I said before many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the
> idea of God but not the word"God".
>
> > Yes, all creature believe in "God"
>>
>
>  As I said before many people, such as yourself. are willing to abandon
> the idea of God but not the word"God"
>
>
Considering things one doesn't understand or know much about to be glop or
a bore is a perfect way for one to never progress in understanding those
things.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

2013-01-15 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/14/2013 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Lobbying should be forbidden.
>
>
> But it's just another name for "petitioning your government".  Lobbyists
> provide a lot research and expertise to the legislative process, so I don't
> think it is workable to just forbid them.
>
> Brent
>

About a year ago or two, a German comic asked the ministerial president of
Bavaria, whether he didn't feel depressed about setting up a political
career with visions of betterment etc. to then have to listen to the daily
lectures of lobbyists advising him to bail out this or that systemically
relevant bank, to avoid financial apocalypse and essentially have a gun
pointed at his head. "Doesn't this state of affairs depress you?" the TV
fool asks the king...

"Yes." conservative Horst Seehofer answered with a nod.

"And how do you deal or live with that then?" the comic.

"Well, I'm open to all forms of therapy. Especially if I don't have to pay;
like here with you, in which case I guess, the treatment reflects the
investment." Politician

"Well, I fear then that this particular treatment case is hopeless... you
know not you personally, of course... but the large financial state of
affairs, I mean... you read through all this financial crisis stuff and
you'll always find some professor who confirms a prejudice you already have
and others that don't. So how do you decide whom to believe about what?"

"No, that's perhaps fair I think. Those that are voted into office to make
decisions do not decide. People who are not voted decide." Seehofer
responds.

"What do you want me to say now? Bummer... C'mon man, you're not just
decoration on the wall!" the comic throws back.

"Ah, of course I run with what I think is best", which was followed by a
vague apologetic statement in favor of voter democracy.

Lobbying transparency at the least. I am opening my own lobby group:
advocates of the right to decide stupid things, without harming others. We
still need a name and members. We have one right now.

Legitimate groups with legitimate concerns should be allowed a voice, like
here:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/white-house-death-star/

If people can rally around such a cause, I don't know anymore if this is
good or bad, lol.

>   --
> 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.

41 matches

Mail list logo