Re: The world is in the brain
On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: With comp, matter relies on the numbers law, or Turing equivalent. Matter also relies on geometry, which comp cannot provide. ? Does that mean you think that comp can generate geometry, or that matter doesn't relay on geometry? comp can generate geometry does not mean something clear. But what can be shown is that in the comp theory, you can assume only number (or combinators) and the + and * laws, this generates all the dreams, which can be shown to generate from the machine points of view, geometry, analysis, and physics. Then we can compare physics with the empirical data and confirm of refute comp (but not proving comp). Since already Diophantus, but then systematically since Descartes, the relation between geometry and arithmetic are deep and multiple. It is a whole subject matter, a priori independent from comp. Maybe this makes it easier to see why forms and functions are not the same as sensory experiences, as no pile of logic automata would inspire feelings, flavors, thoughts, etc. That is what we ask you to justify, or to assume explicitly, not to take for granted. The fact that logic automata unites form and function as a single process should show that there is no implicit aesthetic preference. A program is a functional shape whose relation with other functional shapes is defined entirely by position. There is no room for, nor plausible emergence of any kind of aesthetic differences between functions we would assume are associated with sight or sound, thought or feeling. Why? Because the function is accomplished with or without any sensory presentation beyond positions of bits. So there is some sensory presentation. In reality there would be low level sensory presentation, but without a theory of physics or computation which supports that, we should not allow it to be smuggled in. So we agree. With comp you already assume the immaterial so its easier to conflate that intangible principle with sensory participation, Which conflation? On the contrary, once a machine self-refers, many usually conflated views get unconflated. The conflation is between computation and sensation. A machine has no sensation, I can agree. We must distinguish a machine from the person who own that machine, or is supported by the machine. but the parts of a machine ultimately are associated with low level sensations at the material level. If that exist. It is on those low level sensory-motor interactions which high level logics can be executed, instrumentally, with no escalation of awareness. May be you should work with Stephen. Despite he defends comp, he point constantly on math which should be better for a non-comp theory like yours. since sense can also be thought of as immaterial also. Which ease, but does not solve the things, you need a self between. Not sure how that relates, but how do you know that a self is needed? Because sense makes sense for a subject, which is a person, and which has different sort of self (like the 8 hypostases in comp + some definition). With logical automata we can see clearly that the functions of computation need not be immaterial at all, and can be presented directly through 4-D material geometry. Either it violates Church thesis, and then it is very interesting, or not, and then it is a red herring for the mind-body peoblem, even if quite interesting in practical applications. My point is that computation need not have a mind - A computation has no mind. But some computation can be assumed to support a mind, or to mke it possible for a mind---a subject--- to manifest itself with respect to different universal mind in the local neighborhood. it can be executed using bodies alone, and logic automata demonstrates that is true. bodies alone don't make sense in the comp theory. In doing this, we expose the difference between computation, which is an anesthetic automatism and consciousness which is an aesthetic direct participation. In doing this, all what I see is that you eliminate the person who got a brain prosthesis. Saying that God made the human following his own image also expose a difference, but not in a quite convincing way. Why isn't the logic automata example convincing? Are you saying that there still must be some mind there even though all functions are executed by bodies? What is your objection? It introduces a notion of bodies, when a simpler theory can explain them, in a way making that simple theory testable. Your argument that machine cannot support a mind mirrors the elimination of person by materialists. Logic automata proves that none of these differences are meaningful in a functionalist universe. ? That any function performed by a logical automata would be the same
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 11 Apr 2013, at 19:43, John Clark wrote: It's a bit odd to ask why a random event happened; if you could explain why then there would be a reason for it to happen, and then it wouldn't be random. Comp explains completely how and why random events happens from the perspective of persons, and this does not make those events any bit less random than they are. QM without collapse does the same. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Free-Will discussion
On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:31, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:24:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Apr 2013, at 17:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:07:01 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:49:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Apr 2013, at 01:51, Craig Weinberg wrote: You already are aware of the relevant aspects of your brain function, and aware of them in a way which is a million times more detailed than any fMRI could ever be. No, you bet on them. You are not aware of your brain, in any direct way. Some antic believed consciousness comes from the liver. That consciousness is related to a brain is a theory, there are only evidence, we cannot experience any theory. By the same understanding that we know the brain is more likely to be the seat of consciousness than the liver, we also know that whatever we experience personally is most available impersonally as brain activity. We can manipulate brain activity magnetically and experience a change in our consciousness, when the same is not true of any other organ. This does not mean that our experience is caused by the brain or that brain characteristics can be translated into conscious qualities, but the correlation shows us that what an fMRI reveals is the correlation of events between space-time body and sensory-motor self. Far from being a map, most of the private experience is utterly opposite and unrecognizable to any of the forms or functions on the 'other side.' I was just saying that we are aware of our experience, then we built theories. Some of those theories are instinctive, other are build during early childhood, and others are brought by long histories. We are not experiencing a brain. In fact we can't according to the usual theory that there are no sensory neurons in the brain. If we are sitting inside of an airplane, it could be said that we don't 'directly experience' the airplane, as we might not be able to tell the difference, if we woke up there, between the seats on a plane and the seats on a train. If a piece of the plane fell off though, then we would be able to infer air travel. The same goes for the brain. We are only aware of it when some unexpected experience is presented. Tinnitus, vertigo, visual phosphenes, proprioceptive changes, phantom smells, etc. All of these give us direct experiences of our own neurology which are beyond theory. It's multi-layered, so that on one level we do hear a sound that sounds like it is coming from outside of our body, but on another level we can test and understand that it can't be. As much as it is quite plausible, the brain existence is theoretical. Tinnitus, vertigo, visual phosphenes, proprioceptive changes, phantom smells, etc. All of these give us *direct* experiences of tinnitus, vertigo, visual phosphenes, proprioceptive changes, and phantom smells, and provide only *indirect* evidence that, perhaps, there is a brain, in some possible reality. Each one of those however are experiences which expose the medium itself. How could something like be possible? Like a lens flare in photography, or pixelation in a video, the phenomena not only reveals a non-purposive sensory artifact, but the particular intrusive quality of the artifact actually reflects the art itself. This is what the neurological symptoms tell us - not that we have a brain and that it is real, OK, then. but that there is more to our nature than to simply be a clear conduit to an objectively real universe. In this way, our senses provide us not only with simple truth, but also simple doubt which leads us to sophisticated truth, which then leads to sophisticated doubt, and finally a reconciled truth (multisense realism). OK. Note that the hypostases might play the role of the multisense in the comp theory. Both inside and outside of the body, and the body themselves are theoretical constructs, which might have, or not, some reality, primitive or not. I'm not so big on the power of the theoretical. To me theory is only as good as the access it provides to understanding. Exactly. Bruno Craig Bruno Craig Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
Re: Losing Control
On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: No they don't. An epiphenomenon is an emergent effect. The natural world is full of complexity and emergent phenomena. Like arithmetic, from which nature emerge itself, necessarily so (and in a verifiable way) if we assume that we have a level of digital substitution. I think you will not convince Craig, because he assumes from the start mind and matter and some relation/identification between them, in a non computational framework. But you are right, and patient, by showing him that he is not valid when arguing that comp *has to* be wrong. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: would I win the bet after all?
On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi John, http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060410/full/news060410-2.html Nelson doesn't rule out the possibility that other psychological or spiritual factors may also play a role. I'm interested in how this experience is generated. That's as far as I take it, says Nelson. As to the ultimate meaning of these experiences, he will leave that question for others to answer. This succint report, by the way, describes a less rigorous experience than the one described in PLoS and is a bit less cautious in the final paragraph than the PLoS one. Who would have thunk? I don't like bets, by the way. I'd feel bed about losing money and I'd feel bad about taking your money. Believe it or not. Full disclosure: I had what could be considered a NDE once. Nothing supernatural about it, no lights, nothing flashing before my eyes. A friend of mine was giving me a ride home late at night and the car lost control on a tight curve. We had a frontal collision against a car on the opposite lane. Thankfully we wer both driving slow so the airbags saved everybody. I lost consciousness (maybe :) for 30 secs and woke to a strong smell of sulphur -- I imagine from the pyrotechnics that inflate the airbags. And a sore neck. The interesting part is the second before the collision. I was 100% sure I was going to die. I did not panik nor did I feel sadness or fear. I felt a calm realisation: oh, so this is how I die. It was extremely peaceful and a bit psychedelic, in that everything felt like a big cosmic joke. Not a haha funny joke, but a joke nevertheless. This has no scientific value, of course. It was an interesting 1p experience that changed my outlook on death for the best. I now consider it a strongly positive experience in my life because I fear death less. I still fear suffering though. I hope my real death turns out to be something of that sort. Note that studying NDE's does not imply that the researchers believe they represent glimpses of God or heaven, any more than studying schizophrenia means the researchers believes the patient's delusions. But such study would not make necessary the NDE into a delusion, no more than some possible understanding of Einstein's brain would make relativity theory delusional a priori. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. But with QM without collapse, matter does not behave randomly. The SWE is deterministic. We are multiplied, and the randomness comes from the first person perspective. Comp extends this. The SWE itself emerges from the first person perspective of the person supervening on the arithmetical relation defining computations. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 12 Apr 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 Well, with some convergence criteria! And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? A very large number. Bruno On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:07, Richard Ruquist wrote: Telmo, I can only give you my opinion. You are of course referring to the double slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different paths, and potentially an infinite number of paths. But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the simplest case send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge of the plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector plane on the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only emerges when the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The actual path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the infinite-photon diffraction pattern. So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number of photons or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern. I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use algorithms that are random number generators? No, it uses the first person indeterminacy in self-multiplication, which explains where the quantum wave comes from. I have explained this on this list and published it a long time ago. That is why I told you that if you take comp into consideration, you must derive QM and perhaps string theory (if it is correct) from addition and multiplication of the natural numbers. I see you have not yet studied or grasped the UDA :) Bruno Richard On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? Hi Richard, Ok, but in that case physics is deterministic, just hard to compute. How do we then deal with the fact that two photons under the precise same conditions can follow two different paths (except for some hidden variable we don't know about)? I'm not a physicist and way over my head here, so this is not a rhetorical question. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send
Re: Scientific journals
On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine asserts things like that. The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp conclusion or prejudice. About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only. Bruno It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
On 12 Apr 2013, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER you wrote: ...Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike. Anyone, with a few practice, can see by itself. I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy of you on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy, despite being fully conscious all the time, get your memory back slowly, so that the copy feels becoming you, but you can see your original self staying there. This is frequent in the salvia reports (the copy effect, or the max effect as I call it in the entheogen.net forum) .With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be described as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the normal logic of the self-referentially correct machine (there are cul-de-sac accessible from any state). In a sense, life is a near death experience all along. What is still amazing, and might contradict comp, is that we can live NDE or DE and come back with some realist memories of the event. .. Who told you about a real??? NDE? Live people imagine various fables. Hi John, sorry, I was probably unclear, by a real NDE I mean when someone concretely approach death. My favorite collection is given by the plane crash investigations. I call that sometime third person NDE, and they are or not related to what is called NDE and which concerns usually the first person report (the light, the tunnel, ...). So, when you are in a plane, and the plane fall 5000 miles, you do a near death experience, with or without the usual first person NDE account. In some context, by a non real NDE, I can also mean a NDE brought by the use of a drug (like DMT or salvia), as opposed as the experience brought by going concretely near death, like when falling from a mountain, or surviving a plane crash. Congrats to your 'theory' about Salvia, - still within your imagination. All theories are within our imagination. But the one brought by salvia can be shown to be also in the imagination of all universal machine. But it belongs to G* - G, and is not communicable as such. Fable, I could say, about the COPY, the SENDING B A C K to Earth, etc. etc. That's a report of experience. It is like a dream report. Nobody should take the content as something believed or even believable. All these are good for discussions on the Everything list - no merit in my opinion. I tried to get 'entheogen.net': Google did not find it. You might try clicking on this: http://entheogen-network.com/forums/index.php?sid=5f144b42a9e7d2045066513721ec5436 or this (salvia discussion) http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=8 My username there is salvialover24. Nobody CAME BACK from a real NDE or DE especially not with REALIST Memories. Fantasies - maybe. Sorry, Bruno, I don't want to spoil your game or good feeling. Just chat. No problem. I will come back on this some day, perhaps, but the NDE is rather easy to explain in the comp theory/belief. I don't insist on that, as the notion of NDE is a bit hard for many to keep being rational on, but this is just one more symptom of the Aristotelian widespread superstition in Matter, primary physicalness, etc. With salvia, on me and on others, I have also got a better understanding of the paradoxical nature of any theology. It is morbid subject matter. But we need to use it a little bit to grasp where the physical reality comes from, when we assume computationalism. Bruno John Mikes On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote: I think I side with Craig: NDE is not N enough, is not D because the 'observer' (gossiper?) came back and not E - rather a compendium of hearsay (s)he stored previously about D-like phenomena. When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes back to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long time partner in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still cannot explain those miraculous experiences (saved my life once) coming allegedly from 'dead' benefactors I knew before they died. I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100 publications, some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it is 'click-stuff' and refereed by well selected (opinionated) scientists mostly. I agree. impact factor and big name leads to self-sustained argument per authority. However the reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g. with certain (peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger politician. I agree very much. Despite I was inclined to believe that Obama might make some progressive change, I find absurd to give a price before seeing him doing anything. I will ask for
Re: Losing Control
Bruno, Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.? That is does comp predict something that is not also predicted by science? What comes to my mind is consciousness. Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: No they don't. An epiphenomenon is an emergent effect. The natural world is full of complexity and emergent phenomena. Like arithmetic, from which nature emerge itself, necessarily so (and in a verifiable way) if we assume that we have a level of digital substitution. I think you will not convince Craig, because he assumes from the start mind and matter and some relation/identification between them, in a non computational framework. But you are right, and patient, by showing him that he is not valid when arguing that comp *has to* be wrong. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
But Bruno, because of the measure problem, MWI must also be probabilistic, otherwise it does not agree with experiment. Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. But with QM without collapse, matter does not behave randomly. The SWE is deterministic. We are multiplied, and the randomness comes from the first person perspective. Comp extends this. The SWE itself emerges from the first person perspective of the person supervening on the arithmetical relation defining computations. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
Is 10^122 or 10^1000 large enough? Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 Well, with some convergence criteria! And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? A very large number. Bruno On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
I have tried to study the UDA but lack sufficient understanding to see how the UDA could compute an infinite number of paths or universes as in the diffraction example I discussed. On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:07, Richard Ruquist wrote: Telmo, I can only give you my opinion. You are of course referring to the double slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different paths, and potentially an infinite number of paths. But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the simplest case send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge of the plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector plane on the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only emerges when the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The actual path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the infinite-photon diffraction pattern. So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number of photons or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern. I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use algorithms that are random number generators? No, it uses the first person indeterminacy in self-multiplication, which explains where the quantum wave comes from. I have explained this on this list and published it a long time ago. That is why I told you that if you take comp into consideration, you must derive QM and perhaps string theory (if it is correct) from addition and multiplication of the natural numbers. I see you have not yet studied or grasped the UDA :) Bruno Richard On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? Hi Richard, Ok, but in that case physics is deterministic, just hard to compute. How do we then deal with the fact that two photons under the precise same conditions can follow two different paths (except for some hidden variable we don't know about)? I'm not a physicist and way over my head here, so this is not a rhetorical question. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
Bruno, Please excuse my bottom posting but my gmail acct prevents me from interleaving my responses. On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I have tried to study the UDA but lack sufficient understanding to see how the UDA could compute an infinite number of paths or universes as in the diffraction example I discussed. On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:07, Richard Ruquist wrote: Telmo, I can only give you my opinion. You are of course referring to the double slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different paths, and potentially an infinite number of paths. But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the simplest case send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge of the plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector plane on the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only emerges when the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The actual path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the infinite-photon diffraction pattern. So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number of photons or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern. I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use algorithms that are random number generators? No, it uses the first person indeterminacy in self-multiplication, which explains where the quantum wave comes from. I have explained this on this list and published it a long time ago. That is why I told you that if you take comp into consideration, you must derive QM and perhaps string theory (if it is correct) from addition and multiplication of the natural numbers. I see you have not yet studied or grasped the UDA :) Bruno Richard On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? Hi Richard, Ok, but in that case physics is deterministic, just hard to compute. How do we then deal with the fact that two photons under the precise same conditions can follow two different paths (except for some hidden variable we don't know about)? I'm not a physicist and way over my head here, so this is not a rhetorical question. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to
Free-Will discussion
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'whatsons...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:22:10 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
Where do you get the idea that subjective events cannot repeat? It
seems another thing that you've just made up, with no rational
justification.
Subjective events cannot literally repeat for the same reason that
historical events cannot literally repeat and you cannot step into the
same
river twice. All conditions are constantly changing so that it is
impossible
for every condition to be reproduced in a given frame of experience
because
what frames private experience is the relation with every other
experience
in the history of the universe, and to an eternity ahead.
My current experience is due to the current configuration of my brain,
But the current configuration of your brain is due to the current events
in your life.
Yes, and the milk is in the refrigerator because I put it there, but if
someone else put it there, or if it miraculously materialised there, the
milk would still be in the refrigerator.
and the current configuration of my brain is due to the preceding
configurations.
Then you rule out any possibility of perception or interaction with
anything outside of your brain. Your brain is basically a slime mold in the
dark.
Brain configuration at T2 is determined by the configuration C1 at T1 +
external influences at T1 + transition rules.
The current configuration is due to the preceding
configurations because of the deterministic causal chain which you
discount. But even without this causal chain, if the current
configuration repeats due to chance at some future point, the
experience would repeat.
That's your assumption. My understanding is that no experience can ever
repeat. How could it? Every particle is always decaying at different rates
in different combinations which cannot be controlled. Even if one
phenomenon were to precisely repeat, the context in which is has repeated
is different, so that the overall event is not repeated. Configurations of
matter don't repeat, but they can echo.
It is known from quantum mechanics that a given volume of space has a
finite number of possible configurations. This number can be calculated:
the Bekenstein bound. So there is only a finite number of brain states that
you can have if your brain remains finite in size, and this number is far,
far greater than the number of mental states you can have since most
possible brain states do not correlate with mental states (eg., if your
brain is mashed in a blender). If you can only have a finite number of
brain states what would prevent the brain states from repeating?
The causal chain is significant only insofar
as it reliably brings about the correct configuration for experiences.
A car mechanic is only significant insofar as he reliably fixes a
problem with the car, but if the same operation were performed
accidentally by a chimpanzee playing with the engine, the car would
run just as well.
That is not the case for free will. If my arm moves without my moving it,
that would be a spasm. If I imitate that motion for a doctor, it is not
really a spasm, even though I am reliably bringing about the correct
configuration to effect the arm motion. Two very different ways to arrive
at the same function. That means that if you build a system based purely on
function, there is no way of knowing which ways of accessing those
functions are present and which are not. To deny this, or remain ignorant
of it, is like a huge flashing neon sign that the full reality of the
phenomenon of consciousness has not been considered at all.
How have you addressed the point I made? If the correct configuration of
the brain were arranged, your arm would move as freely and consciously as
you like. The brain configuration for a spasm would be different. That's
why one is a spasm and the other is voluntary movement. To build something
you don't necessarily need to understand it, you just need to arrange
matter in the correct configuration. Cells do this, and they don't
understand anything.
We know that the person is the same regardless of the origin of the
matter in their body.
Huh? What person are you claiming is the same as another person?
A person has atoms from a hamburger in their brain one day and atoms from a
pizza another day, but they remain the same person. The origin of the
matter is not important.
We know that the entire person is rebuilt from
alternative matter over the course of normal metabolism and they
remain the same person.
Not all at once though. Any organization can trade a certain number of old
employees for new employees at a given time - the new employees learn by
example of existing employees and can be trained by them as well. You
cannot expect to fire
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr. Sam Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE project. He has a partial sumary of this study in his new book, Erasing Death (US) or The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book different titles. Parnia's AWARE study involves 25 hospital emergency rooms, in which signs or messages are place in odd places, that face upwards, to determine if out of body sensing is valid? A patient seeing a 5-pointed star with a daisy printed next to it, that has been placed 3 metre's above the emergency room floors might be an example of what Parnia has done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then that tells us something. Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The main thrust of his research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using techniques like cold treatments to preserve body and neural tissue. Parnia complains that depending on which emergency room physicians use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will effect the chances of survivability and recovery of the patient. Fore example, Dr. Parnia says that in the US, Seattle is the place to be, for cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals are well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the heart, cooling the brain, whatever? The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to ressucitation research. What do I expect? I am not sure, although the opponents of the Liege study haven't yet come up with the vividity explanation, versus dreams, hallucinations, and drug trips. In other words, you can lose the cognitve regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad, blotter acid, and not be able to recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, from every day life. One simply believes what one hears and see's. The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin. Is there a neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid hallucinations? Hard to understand the neural mechanism for this. When you've lost blood, do you produce a lot of serotonin, or endorphins? What evolution basis causes this, if that is our explanation. How did it become a successful trait that permitted wounded or damaged animals, to survive, and thus, mate, and therefore, go on to have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in tooth and claw, would likely have accidently evolved to elininate, such damaged animals. So what gives? -Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that the very idea of singular causes and singular effects is deeply flawed. Deeply flawed or not that reductionist philosophy has taught us everything we know about science. If we believe in a holistic approach and assumed that we can't know anything until we know everything then we'd be stuck in a rut forever. Can you point to a few examples of singular causes? I can do better than that, I can give a example of a effect with no cause at all, the creation of virtual particles. All examples that I can think of have a line of regress behind them... So that means there is either a infinite regress of causes and effects like the layers of a infinite onion with no fundamental layer, or there is a effect without a cause. Neither of those possibilities is emotionally satisfying to some people but one of them must be true. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz (21st century physics) for beginners
Leibniz (21st century physics) for beginners https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAIwBnDc7o0 Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/13/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
SORRY,SENT BY MISTAKE. PLEASE IGNORE.---- Re: Leibniz (21st century physics) for beginners
SORRY,SENT BY MISTAKE. PLEASE IGNORE. Re: Leibniz (21st century physics) for beginners Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/13/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Friday, April 12, 2013 9:57:53 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Stephen Paul King kingste...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Telmo Menezes wrote: ...My understanding is that it's consistent with the MWI and also with what Russel proposes in his book: everything happens but each observer only perceives one of the outcomes. This seems highly unintuitive to a lot of people, but it seems more reasonable to me than the idea that there is just one Telmo with one personal diary. If there are infinitely many, each one with his own personal diary, the world still looks exactly like it does to this particular instance of me, and we do not have to resort to any randomness magic. What people do not seem to understand is that 1st person perspectives, for instance, what any one version of Telmo perceives' is constrained to be consistent with Telmo's existence as a perciever. Observing many points of view simultaneously from a single location is very much like a list of propositions that are not mutually consistent. This is a failure of satisfiability in a Boolean algebra. The property of satisfiability does not just occur by magic... Yes, I think about that too. It leads me to the idea that logic is more fundamental than physical laws. I think that physical laws must supervene on sense. It is possible to have experiences which have no logic and follow no physical law, but have aesthetic sense. Logic requires an organization of pattern, that it a particular kind of meta-pattern, but pattern in itself can only be sensed, not designed functionally. I would propose that each subset of consistent perceptions is precisely what a 1p is. That's why I am not aware of my alters, and maybe why I am not aware that I am you. I'm counting memories as perceptions for simplification -- one could imagine the brain as a bag of states that can be perceived, which is perhaps a bizarre way of defining memory / personal diaries. Any state can be perceived with the proper perceiver, no state can be perceived without one. Craig Telmo. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript: wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Telmo, I can only give you my opinion. Thanks Richard. You are of course referring to the double slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different paths, and potentially an infinite number of paths. But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the simplest case send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge of the plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector plane on the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only emerges when the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The actual path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the infinite-photon diffraction pattern. So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number of photons or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern. But then we're still left without a theory that could explain the behaviour of a single photon without resorting to randomness, correct? I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use algorithms that are random number generators? I'll leave this one for Bruno, of course. My understanding is that it's consistent with the MWI and also with what Russel proposes in his book: everything happens but each observer only perceives one of the outcomes. This seems highly unintuitive to a lot of people, but it seems more reasonable to me than the idea that there is just one Telmo with one personal diary. If there are infinitely many, each one with his own personal diary, the world still looks exactly like it does to this particular instance of me, and we do not have to resort to any randomness magic. It's tempting for me to extend this idea to everyone and not just Telmos, at the risk of sounding a bit new-agey. I don't yet understand how an algorithm could be a random number generator (non-pseudo), but I think Bruno has more to say here. Telmo. Richard On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript: wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components:
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
On 4/13/2013 7:13 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr. Sam Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE project. He has a partial sumary of this study in his new book, Erasing Death (US) or The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book different titles. Parnia's AWARE study involves 25 hospital emergency rooms, in which signs or messages are place in odd places, that face upwards, to determine if out of body sensing is valid? A patient seeing a 5-pointed star with a daisy printed next to it, that has been placed 3 metre's above the emergency room floors might be an example of what Parnia has done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then that tells us something. Five years and no positive result. Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The main thrust of his research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using techniques like cold treatments to preserve body and neural tissue. Parnia complains that depending on which emergency room physicians use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will effect the chances of survivability and recovery of the patient. Fore example, Dr. Parnia says that in the US, Seattle is the place to be, for cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals are well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the heart, cooling the brain, whatever? The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to ressucitation research. What do I expect? I am not sure, although the opponents of the Liege study haven't yet come up with the vividity explanation, versus dreams, hallucinations, and drug trips. In other words, you can lose the cognitve regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad, blotter acid, and not be able to recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, from every day life. One simply believes what one hears and see's. The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin. Is there a neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid hallucinations? Hard to understand the neural mechanism for this. When you've lost blood, do you produce a lot of serotonin, or endorphins? What evolution basis causes this, if that is our explanation. How did it become a successful trait that permitted wounded or damaged animals, to survive, What makes you think it helps them survive? and thus, mate, and therefore, go on to have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in tooth and claw, would likely have accidently evolved to elininate, such damaged animals. So what gives? No every trait is driven by natural selection. So long as it is not sufficiently contrary to reproductive success it may be carried along in a population. Brent -Mitch No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6241 - Release Date: 04/12/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that the very idea of singular causes and singular effects is deeply flawed. Deeply flawed or not that reductionist philosophy has taught us everything we know about science. The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is non-reductionist. It relies on the concept of natural selection, which is an holistic concept. Reductionism is more effective because of a selection bias. Problems that can be solved by reductionism are easier. Finding a cure for cancer or understanding exactly how the brain works resist the reductionist approach to this day. If we believe in a holistic approach and assumed that we can't know anything until we know everything then we'd be stuck in a rut forever. You're creating a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be single cause or know everything. There are many possibilities in between. Can you point to a few examples of singular causes? I can do better than that, I can give a example of a effect with no cause at all, the creation of virtual particles. One could argue that they are the result of some condition created by the Big Bang. Causality is just a human concept anyway. All examples that I can think of have a line of regress behind them... So that means there is either a infinite regress of causes and effects like the layers of a infinite onion with no fundamental layer, or there is a effect without a cause. Neither of those possibilities is emotionally satisfying to some people but one of them must be true. Unless we question causality itself. Which we should. This is why Science is not the only way to pursue knowledge and Philosophy is necessary. Telmo. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
Brent Five years and no positive result. The study hasn't been released yet. It gets released in November, this year. No every trait is driven by natural selection. So long as it is not sufficiently contrary to reproductive success it may be carried along in a population. This, goes against Darwinian principles does it not? Everything is natural selection, unless it's artificial selection. I wonder if there was an artificial selection going on, that occurred because of human behavior of our ancestors, both recent and remote? I can't come up with such an line of behavior, but perhaps someone else can. What kind and manner of behavior would prevent a wounded animals' death, so they can survive and procreate? How did these vivid hallucinations evolve in a dying creatures brain. We understand endorphins and enkepflins (sp?), but what creates a trans-real illusion in a dying brain? How does this emerge, biologically, through randomness? We will have to wait until November to see if Parnia comes up with something interesting, or it's a dead end, literally. The more interesting the evidence, the more vehement will be the opposition. Mitch -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 4:53 pm Subject: Re: NDE's Proved Real? On 4/13/2013 7:13 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr. Sam Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE project. He has a partial sumary of this study in his new book, Erasing Death (US) or The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book different titles. Parnia's AWARE study involves 25 hospital emergency rooms, in which signs or messages are place in odd places, that face upwards, to determine if out of body sensing is valid? A patient seeing a 5-pointed star with a daisy printed next to it, that has been placed 3 metre's above the emergency room floors might be an example of what Parnia has done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then that tells us something. Five years and no positive result. Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The main thrust of his research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using techniques like cold treatments to preserve body and neural tissue. Parnia complains that depending on which emergency room physicians use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will effect the chances of survivability and recovery of the patient. Fore example, Dr. Parnia says that in the US, Seattle is the place to be, for cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals are well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the heart, cooling the brain, whatever? The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to ressucitation research. What do I expect? I am not sure, although the opponents of the Liege study haven't yet come up with the vividity explanation, versus dreams, hallucinations, and drug trips. In other words, you can lose the cognitve regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad, blotter acid, and not be able to recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, from every day life. One simply believes what one hears and see's. The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin. Is there a neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid hallucinations? Hard to understand the neural mechanism for this. When you've lost blood, do you produce a lot of serotonin, or endorphins? What evolution basis causes this, if that is our explanation. How did it become a successful trait that permitted wounded or damaged animals, to survive, What makes you think it helps them survive? and thus, mate, and therefore, go on to have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in tooth and claw, would likely have accidently evolved to elininate, such damaged animals. So what gives? No every trait is driven by natural selection. So long as it is not sufficiently contrary to reproductive success it may be carriedalong in a population. Brent -Mitch No virusfound in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6241 - Release Date: 04/12/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Re: The world is in the brain
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:47:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: With comp, matter relies on the numbers law, or Turing equivalent. Matter also relies on geometry, which comp cannot provide. ? Does that mean you think that comp can generate geometry, or that matter doesn't relay on geometry? comp can generate geometry does not mean something clear. I think its pretty clear. Without a printer or video screen, my computer cannot generate geometry. It doesn't matter how much CPU power or memory I have, the functions will come no closer to taking on a coherent geometric form somewhere. I can make endless computations about circles and pi, but there is never any need for any literal presentation of a circle in the universe. No actual circle is present. But what can be shown is that in the comp theory, you can assume only number (or combinators) and the + and * laws, this generates all the dreams, which can be shown to generate from the machine points of view, geometry, analysis, and physics. That's only because you have given + and * the benefit of the dream to begin with. Comp is tautology. Then we can compare physics with the empirical data and confirm of refute comp (but not proving comp). Since already Diophantus, but then systematically since Descartes, the relation between geometry and arithmetic are deep and multiple. It is a whole subject matter, a priori independent from comp. What is the relation between comp and geometry? Craig Maybe this makes it easier to see why forms and functions are not the same as sensory experiences, as no pile of logic automata would inspire feelings, flavors, thoughts, etc. That is what we ask you to justify, or to assume explicitly, not to take for granted. The fact that logic automata unites form and function as a single process should show that there is no implicit aesthetic preference. A program is a functional shape whose relation with other functional shapes is defined entirely by position. There is no room for, nor plausible emergence of any kind of aesthetic differences between functions we would assume are associated with sight or sound, thought or feeling. Why? Because the function is accomplished with or without any sensory presentation beyond positions of bits. So there is some sensory presentation. In reality there would be low level sensory presentation, but without a theory of physics or computation which supports that, we should not allow it to be smuggled in. So we agree. With comp you already assume the immaterial so its easier to conflate that intangible principle with sensory participation, Which conflation? On the contrary, once a machine self-refers, many usually conflated views get unconflated. The conflation is between computation and sensation. A machine has no sensation, I can agree. We must distinguish a machine from the person who own that machine, or is supported by the machine. but the parts of a machine ultimately are associated with low level sensations at the material level. If that exist. It is on those low level sensory-motor interactions which high level logics can be executed, instrumentally, with no escalation of awareness. May be you should work with Stephen. Despite he defends comp, he point constantly on math which should be better for a non-comp theory like yours. since sense can also be thought of as immaterial also. Which ease, but does not solve the things, you need a self between. Not sure how that relates, but how do you know that a self is needed? Because sense makes sense for a subject, which is a person, and which has different sort of self (like the 8 hypostases in comp + some definition). With logical automata we can see clearly that the functions of computation need not be immaterial at all, and can be presented directly through 4-D material geometry. Either it violates Church thesis, and then it is very interesting, or not, and then it is a red herring for the mind-body peoblem, even if quite interesting in practical applications. My point is that computation need not have a mind - A computation has no mind. But some computation can be assumed to support a mind, or to mke it possible for a mind---a subject--- to manifest itself with respect to different universal mind in the local neighborhood. it can be executed using bodies alone, and logic automata demonstrates that is true. bodies alone don't make sense in the comp theory. In doing this, we expose the difference between computation, which is an anesthetic automatism and consciousness which is an aesthetic direct participation. In doing this, all what I see is that you eliminate the person who got a brain prosthesis. Saying that God made
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
Bruno, I stand corrected (redface): I had a closed mind for NDE considered only as the observable experience on the 'patient' in a dying-like situation. Your airplane-example opened my eyes: it may refer to experiences when someone (a group?) faces death. Adding my story to my mistake: I had a similar experience in the 1944 siege of Budapest when 5 of us were crammed into a small WC watching the sounds of explosions of the Russian serial gun-hits closing in on us 1-2 seconds apart. We did not know which next one will hit us. Every participant had a totally different attitude, I kept a strong observing eye on them (to keep myself sane). Fortunately the salvos hit higher than where we were and destroyed a higher étage. I forgot to realize that things have more than one aspect to watch. This WAS a NDE - on others. We just knew that we're gona die. No philosophy, no physiology, no 'return'. Then we heard the explosions passing us? i.e. coming from further and further. John On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER you wrote: *...Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike. Anyone, with a few practice, can see by itself.* * * *I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy of you on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy, despite being fully conscious all the time, get your memory back slowly, so that the copy feels becoming you, but you can see your original self staying there. This is frequent in the salvia reports (the copy effect, or the max effect as I call it in the entheogen.net forum)* * * .*With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be described as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the normal logic of the self-referentially correct machine (there are cul-de-sac accessible from any state). In a sense, life is a near death experience all along. What is still amazing, and might contradict comp, is that we can live NDE or DE and come back with some realist memories of the event. ..* * * Who told you about a real??? NDE? Live people imagine various fables. Hi John, sorry, I was probably unclear, by a real NDE I mean when someone concretely approach death. My favorite collection is given by the plane crash investigations. I call that sometime third person NDE, and they are or not related to what is called NDE and which concerns usually the first person report (the light, the tunnel, ...). So, when you are in a plane, and the plane fall 5000 miles, you do a near death experience, with or without the usual first person NDE account. In some context, by a non real NDE, I can also mean a NDE brought by the use of a drug (like DMT or salvia), as opposed as the experience brought by going concretely near death, like when falling from a mountain, or surviving a plane crash. Congrats to your 'theory' about Salvia, - still within your imagination. All theories are within our imagination. But the one brought by salvia can be shown to be also in the imagination of all universal machine. But it belongs to G* - G, and is not communicable as such. Fable, I could say, about the COPY, the SENDING B A C K to Earth, etc. etc. That's a report of experience. It is like a dream report. Nobody should take the content as something believed or even believable. All these are good for discussions on the Everything list - no merit in my opinion. I tried to get 'entheogen.net': Google did not find it. You might try clicking on this: http://entheogen-network.com/forums/index.php?sid=5f144b42a9e7d2045066513721ec5436 or this (salvia discussion) http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=8 My username there is salvialover24. Nobody CAME BACK from a real NDE or DE especially not with REALIST Memories. Fantasies - maybe. Sorry, Bruno, I don't want to spoil your game or good feeling. Just chat. No problem. I will come back on this some day, perhaps, but the NDE is rather easy to explain in the comp theory/belief. I don't insist on that, as the notion of NDE is a bit hard for many to keep being rational on, but this is just one more symptom of the Aristotelian widespread superstition in Matter, primary physicalness, etc. With salvia, on me and on others, I have also got a better understanding of the paradoxical nature of any theology. It is morbid subject matter. But we need to use it a little bit to grasp where the physical reality comes from, when we assume computationalism. Bruno John Mikes On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote: I think I side with Craig: NDE is not N enough, is not D because the 'observer' (gossiper?) came back and not E -
Re: Hey look, a well written article...
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:51:15 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: ...which fully supports my entire philosophy of science and understanding of free will. http://mills.quora.com/Free-Will-and-the-Fallibility-of-Science/comments?__ac__=1#comment200399 Free Will and the Fallibility of Science Mills Baker 5 votes by David Cole, Marc Bodnick, Craig Weinberg, (more) One of the most significant intellectual errors educated persons make is in underestimating the fallibility of science. The very best scientific theories containing our soundest, most reliable knowledge are certain to be superseded, recategorized from right to wrong; they are, as physicist David Deutsch says, misconceptions: I have often thought that the nature of science would be better understood if we called theories “misconceptions” from the outset, instead of only after we have discovered their successors. Thus we could say that Einstein’s Misconception of Gravity was an improvement on Newton’s Misconception, which was an improvement on Kepler’s. The neo-Darwinian Misconception of Evolution is an improvement on Darwin’s Misconception, and his on Lamarck’s… Science claims neither infallibility nor finality. This fact comes as a surprise to many; we tend to think of science —at the point of conclusion, when it becomes knowledge— as being more or less infallible and certainly final. Science, indeed, is the sole area of human investigation whose reports we take seriously to the point of crypto-objectivism. Even people who very much deny the possibility of objective knowledge step onto airplanes and ingest medicines. And most importantly: where science contradicts what we believe or know through cultural or even personal means, we accept science and discard those truths, often enough wisely. An obvious example: the philosophical problem of free will. When Newton's misconceptions were still considered the exemplar of truth par excellence, the very model of knowledge, many philosophers felt obliged to accept a kind of determinism with radical implications. Give the initial-state of the universe, it appeared, we should be able to follow all particle trajectories through the present, account for all phenomena through purely physical means. In other words: the chain of causation from the Big Bang on left no room for your volition: Determinism in the West is often associated with Newtonian physics, which depicts the physical matter of the universe as operating according to a set of fixed, knowable laws. The billiard ball hypothesis, a product of Newtonian physics, argues that once the initial conditions of the universe have been established, the rest of the history of the universe follows inevitably. If it were actually possible to have complete knowledge of physical matter and all of the laws governing that matter at any one time, then it would be theoretically possible to compute the time and place of every event that will ever occur (Laplace's demon). In this sense, the basic particles of the universe operate in the same fashion as the rolling balls on a billiard table, moving and striking each other in predictable ways to produce predictable results. Thus: the movement of the atoms of your body, and the emergent phenomena that such movement entails, can all be physically accounted for as part of a chain of merely physical, causal steps. You do not decide things; your feelings aren't governing anything; there is no meaning to your sense of agency or rationality. From this essentially unavoidable philosophical position, we are logically-compelled to derive many political, moral, and cultural conclusions. For example: if free will is a phenomenological illusion, we must deprecate phenomenology in our philosophies; it is the closely-clutched delusion of a faulty animal; people, as predictable and materially reducible as commodities, can be reckoned by governments and institutions as though they are numbers. Freedom is a myth; you are the result of a process you didn't control, and your choices aren't choices at all but the results of laws we can discover, understand, and base our morality upon. I should note now that (1) many people, even people far from epistemology, accept this idea, conveyed via the diffusion of science and philosophy through politics, art, and culture, that most of who you are is determined apart from your will; and (2) the development of quantum physics has not in itself upended the theory that free will is an illusion, as the sorts of indeterminacy we see among particles does not provide sufficient room, as it were, for free will.
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
On 4/13/2013 2:59 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Brent Five years and no positive result. The study hasn't been released yet. It gets released in November, this year. If they had positive results to you really suppose they, the doctors, the nurses could have all kept it secret? No every trait is driven by natural selection. So long as it is not sufficiently contrary to reproductive success it may be carried along in a population. This, goes against Darwinian principles does it not? No. Everything is natural selection, unless it's artificial selection. Natural selection can only act on traits that make a difference - not all traits make a difference. Brent I wonder if there was an artificial selection going on, that occurred because of human behavior of our ancestors, both recent and remote? I can't come up with such an line of behavior, but perhaps someone else can. What kind and manner of behavior would prevent a wounded animals' death, so they can survive and procreate? How did these vivid hallucinations evolve in a dying creatures brain. We understand endorphins and enkepflins (sp?), but what creates a trans-real illusion in a dying brain? How does this emerge, biologically, through randomness? We will have to wait until November to see if Parnia comes up with something interesting, or it's a dead end, literally. The more interesting the evidence, the more vehement will be the opposition. Mitch -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 4:53 pm Subject: Re: NDE's Proved Real? On 4/13/2013 7:13 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr. Sam Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE project. He has a partial sumary of this study in his new book, Erasing Death (US) or The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book different titles. Parnia's AWARE study involves 25 hospital emergency rooms, in which signs or messages are place in odd places, that face upwards, to determine if out of body sensing is valid? A patient seeing a 5-pointed star with a daisy printed next to it, that has been placed 3 metre's above the emergency room floors might be an example of what Parnia has done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then that tells us something. Five years and no positive result. Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The main thrust of his research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using techniques like cold treatments to preserve body and neural tissue. Parnia complains that depending on which emergency room physicians use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will effect the chances of survivability and recovery of the patient. Fore example, Dr. Parnia says that in the US, Seattle is the place to be, for cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals are well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the heart, cooling the brain, whatever? The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to ressucitation research. What do I expect? I am not sure, although the opponents of the Liege study haven't yet come up with the vividity explanation, versus dreams, hallucinations, and drug trips. In other words, you can lose the cognitve regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad, blotter acid, and not be able to recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, from every day life. One simply believes what one hears and see's. The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin. Is there a neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid hallucinations? Hard to understand the neural mechanism for this. When you've lost blood, do you produce a lot of serotonin, or endorphins? What evolution basis causes this, if that is our explanation. How did it become a successful trait that permitted wounded or damaged animals, to survive, What makes you think it helps them survive? and thus, mate, and therefore, go on to have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in tooth and claw, would likely have accidently evolved to elininate, such damaged animals. So what gives? No every trait is driven by natural selection. So long as it is not sufficiently contrary to reproductive success it may be carried along in a population. Brent -Mitch No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6241 - Release Date: 04/12/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 4/13/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Unless we question causality itself. Which we should. This is why Science is not the only way to pursue knowledge and Philosophy is necessary. Causality isn't even an important concept in fundamental physics. All the equations are time reversal (or CPT) invariant. But philosophers resisted this view. What knowledge do you think has come from philosophy? Brent The philosophy of science is just about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. --- Steven Weinberg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Scientific journals
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine asserts things like that. The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp conclusion or prejudice. So if self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things that I do, what about the self-referentially correct machines can assert similar things to what Bruno asserts? If one machine claims that the other machine's reports are self-referential artifacts, then how can you say that self-referentially correct machines assert anything in particular? Where are you getting the sense of machine consensus when comp would mean that humans, often incapable of consensus, would contribute evidence to support or contradict any position or belief? About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only. Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. If you aren't interested, then go on assuming that it is idiotic, it makes no difference to me. Craig Bruno It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
