date:20140528

On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 5/27/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:

 As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
 into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that
 either his premises or his argument is wrong...


  I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't
 gone down that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did try to
 drop it. I shall probably try again.


 Bruno may well be wrong about falsification. I haven't tried to follow the
 arguments you and he have had on the subject, or not very much. I know
 Bruno has said he does have a theory of everything, which is subject to
 falsification... which it seems to me is an awful lot to derive from the
 idea that consciousness arises from computation

  I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and therefore
 consciousness) can exist without physics.  That physical instantiation is
 dispensable.


Yes indeed. I would say that for comp to be meaningful, it's necessary to
show that information is a real (and fundamental) thing, rather than
something that only has relevance / meaning to us - I suppose deriving the
entropy of a black hole, the Beckenstein bound and the holographic
principle all hint that this is the case. (Maybe QM unitarity and the black
hole information paradox too?)

I'm not sure how secure a footing any of these items put the reification
of information it on, though.

If that *is* established, then I guess comp becomes one potential route to
derive it from bit.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?


On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:

On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/27/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:

On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:

As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to 
segue
into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show 
that
either his premises or his argument is wrong...


I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't 
gone down
that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did try to drop it. 
I shall
probably try again.

Bruno may well be wrong about falsification. I haven't tried to follow the
arguments you and he have had on the subject, or not very much. I know 
Bruno has
said he does have a theory of everything, which is subject to 
falsification...
which it seems to me is an awful lot to derive from the idea that 
consciousness
arises from computation

I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and therefore
consciousness) can exist without physics.  That physical instantiation is 
dispensable.


Yes indeed. I would say that for comp to be meaningful, it's necessary to show that 
information is a real (and fundamental) thing, rather than something that only has 
relevance / meaning to us - I suppose deriving the entropy of a black hole, the 
Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle all hint that this is the case. (Maybe 
QM unitarity and the black hole information paradox too?)


I'm not sure how secure a footing any of these items put the reification of 
information it on, though.


As Bruno has noted, we live on border between order and chaos - neither maximum nor 
minimum information/entropy but something like complexity.  Here's recent survey of ways 
to quantify it by Scott Aaronso, Sean Carroll and Lauren Ouellette. 
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1818


Brent



If that /is/ established, then I guess comp becomes one potential route to derive it 
from bit.


--
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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?



On 28 May 2014, at 02:59, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:




On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:13:38 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:



 -Original Message-
 From: LizR liz...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
 Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

 On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List  
lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com

 gt; wrote:
  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
 the scientific sense.


Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is
wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its
logic of the observable) and its actual testing?

Because you don't have one.


But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional  
physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.


So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean  
logic, like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.


And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people  
using the quantum facts to argue against mechanism.


The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable,  
and infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more  
complex.


If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in  
the field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of  
the possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the  
structure of the computations going through our states  
(computational states), and so that logic is determined by the  
mental ability of the universal machine. Mathematically, we can  
limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) beliefs, like 0+x =  
x, etc.







Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work?


Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the  
physics of the machines.


Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics  
that I do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics  
collapse into boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have  
been refuted, or show trivial, and QM would have been refuted  
altogether, at least as a physical laws. The real physics would be  
boolean, and QM would only describe a subpart of it.


Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts  
or retrodicts that the observable
have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like  
logic. It predicts or retrodicts also a part of the hamiltonian  
under a symmetry conditions.


It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it,  
but that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to  
solve to progress.  You just need to understand the technics. It is  
had, and I have done the best I could. A student and friend of mine,  
the late Eric Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.


And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics,  
which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process.  My  
interest is in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.







If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one.  
But does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory.



They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck  (or  
bad luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is  
exactly the quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that.
And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the  
origin of the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that  
where UDA and machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we  
find quantum logic.


If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum  
QL, well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.


Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more  
axioms, and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new  
theorems and new physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is  
not just the classical knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*)  
have axioms inherited from the Löb formula, from which we get  
information not available. In their first order arithmetical  
extensions, there is an infinities of such information.


Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.I've  
no access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm  
concerned a 'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and  
private. Like fight club geezer...that silly film: what happens on  
everything list, stays on everything list. My blood my pledge!

Re: TRONNIES



On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:46:05 PM UTC+1, John Ross wrote:

 Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph.  It reminds me of 
 the only lawyer joke that I can remember.  “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet 
 deep.”  “Because down deep they are not too bad.”

  

 I did learn the Law of Sines and I re-learned it over the weekend.  My new 
 knowledge has added support for my theory.  One of my genius friends is 
 checking my math.  I will post the results when I get them.  


that's a major result from law of sines! why not try factorizing quadratics 
next and see where that goes? 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 28-May-2014, at 9:32 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Here's page 1307 - I would prefer it if you quoted whatever it is you're
referring to rather than giving a link to a (rather difficult to access)
online book, because it doesn't mean much to me...

I did give the alternate meanings of s-j-d. The link to the dictionary and the
other one was in case you wanted to verify for yourself.
Haven't heard further from you regarding the Honey Bee. As you requested that
it be resolved before proceeding with other verses of scientific relevance, I
haven't initiated any new topic. However, I've started a new blog which
attempts to study the factual accuracy of the Quran. Here's the link in case
you or anyone else on this list is interested:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com

Samiya

As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it
certainly isn't a very succinct summary.

On 28 May 2014 16:19, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume it
also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical
prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307 ]
Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration:
http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves?

On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of
11 or 12 planets in the solar system.
[Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father:
O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon,
I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.
[Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on the
dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father!
This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true,
and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath
brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my
brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the
Wise.

Samiya
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status

Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis
places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-05-28 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:


 On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens
 wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to
 grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...


 Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know
 enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for
 biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It
 could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, or
 the most likely solution.

 Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar.
 We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other
 species that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to us
 - for example, we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't
 interbreed with them.


 Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were
 talking about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding. So
 functional similarity might be enough, as alluded in sheep are nervous. :)

 Well if you're just talking about something you can put your dick in (or
 an alien can put their proboscis in), that's a (ahem) broad range of items,
 depending on your tastes (See A melon for ecstasy and The unrepentant
 necrophile for some suggestions for things one can have sex with in this
 sense, should one be so inclined).


Interesting stuff. When I was a teenager, me and some friends would pretend
that we ran a necrophilia fanzine. We would have conversations about it,
just to disturb people in hearing range. The title of this fictitious
publication was Formaldehyde. Life can get excruciatingly boring in small
towns...



 However your original reply (in blue above) certainly *appeared* to be
 talking about interbreeding. (Or did you mean humanoid forms are the only
 viable solution for fetishists who happen to get their kicks from anally
 probing members of other species ?)


Ok, I wasn't so clear. My speculation was somewhere in the middle: that
species can exist that may not necessarily interbreed but are sufficiently
similar to be sexually attractive to each other -- or, more precisely, to
elements of each other's species with common sexual tastes.

So the reason why I find this sort of speculation interesting is that we
assume a hypothetical diversity in the tree of possible organisms of
human-level intelligence or above. It is compelling to assume high
diversity, given the combinatorial explosion of possibilities afforded by
DNA encoding and the biological diversity we can observe on earth. But we
don't really know.

A counter-hypothesis is that, as complexity increases, the space of viable
solutions gets smaller. In an extreme case, it could be that human-level
intelligence always requires humanoids. Even taking our friends the
orangutans and bonobos. Suppose they keep evolving until they reach
human-level intelligence. They are quite close now. Maybe they will lose
their fur and develop more and more human-like features until they become
sexually attractive to regular humans.

I am not saying that this is the case, or even that I have any evidence for
it. What I do know, from experimenting with evolutionary computation, is
that we should be suspicious of our intuitions when it comes to such highly
complex systems.

Best,
Telmo.



 But anyway  OK, aliens *may* want to have sex with humans, just as a
 human *may* want to have sex with orangutans - but generally they won't,
 because sexual attraction is fairly fine tuned, both by evolution and
 social norms (indeed it's so fine tuned that species that could in theory
 interbreed often don't) - and, at least in my experience, most humans don't
 even want to have sex with most other humans . never mind fancying
 members of a different species who will almost certainly give out all the
 wrong visual, behavioural, and chemical cues.

  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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

Re: Pluto bounces back!



On 28 May 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote:


Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status

Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis  
places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter




Good news!

I have never really understood the disgrace of Pluto.

To me, something big enough and quasi-spherical, and heavy enough to  
go around a star, is a planet enough.


I know that definition might made the number of Solar Planets very  
big, but in the everything list that should not be a problem. How  
many? About 2014 I think :)


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-05-28 Thread Terren Suydam

Just wanted to extend a hearty thanks to the list - just watched The
Prestige last night. What a stunning movie - my mind is blown. If you're on
this list and you haven't seen it, that's something you need to correct! :-)

Terren


On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Martin Abramson
martinabrams...@gmail.comwrote:

 Yes, the 4 superstars performing and explaining some stunning illusions
 all done with brilliant fx.


 On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:41 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_You_See_Me_%28film%29 ?

 that was quite fun, a bit incredulity stretching...


 On 2 May 2014 01:14, Martin Abramson martinabrams...@gmail.com wrote:

 How about:  NOW YOU SEE ME   ?


  On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.

 There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.

 To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might
 appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least
 tangentially, and in a fictional manner).

 I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block
 univese.

 Sadly no one seems to have filmed October the First is Too Late
 although the 10-episode epic Doctor Who story The War Games comes close
 in some respects. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Who story
 was inspired by Hoyle's novel, which I think appeared about 3 years
 beforehand if I remember correctly. I would semi-recommend this (but you
 have to remember that it was made in black and white, for viewing as a
 weekly serial in 1969...)

  --
 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.
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to


   
   - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment 
   completely different from the physical space they were actually in - 
   sounds familiar
   - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as 
   hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- 
   machines 
   - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in 
   which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 
   3p?



Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The 
Conversation
[image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), 
another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose 
brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right 
corner). Credit: Brain 
…morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html

Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we 
humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains 
surprisingly poorly understood.

That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making 
interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon.

The main player in this story is something called the 
claustrumhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum. 
The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European 
monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of 
neurons just below the 
cortexhttp://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/cerebral-cortex.htm, 
and possibly derived from it in brain development.

The cortex http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortex/ is the massive folded 
layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain 
functions such as language, long-term planning and our advanced sensory 
functions.

Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many 
cortical 
areas http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortical+areas/. The visual 
cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+cortex/ (the 
region involved in seeing) sends axons (the connecting wires of the 
nervous system) to the claustrum, and also receives axons from the 
claustrum.

The same is true for the auditory 
cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/auditory+cortex/ (involved 
in hearing) and a number of other cortex areas. A wealth of information 
converges in the claustrum and leaves it to re-enter the cortex.

*The connection*

Francis 
Crickhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/crick-bio.html
 – 
who together with James 
Watsonhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-facts.html
 gave 
us the structure of DNA – was interested in a connection between the 
claustrum and consciousness http://medicalxpress.com/tags/consciousness/.

In a recent paper, published in Frontiers in Integrative 
Neurosciencehttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnint.2014.00020/abstract,
 
we have built on the ideas he described in his very last scientific 
publication http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/.

Crick and co-author Christoph 
Kochhttp://www.alleninstitute.org/our-institute/our-team/profiles/christof-koch
 argued 
that the claustrum could be a coordinator of cortical 
functionhttp://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/crick-koch-05.pdf and 
hence a conductor of consciousness.

Such percepts as colour, form, sound, body position and social relations 
are all represented in different parts of the cortex. How are they bound to 
a unified experience of consciousness? Wouldn't a region exerting a (even 
limited) central control over all these cortical areas be highly useful?

This is what Crick and Koch suggested when they hypothesised the claustrum 
to be a conductor of consciousness. But how could this hypothesis about 
the claustrum's role be tested?

*Plant power alters the mind*
[image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
Salvia divinorum (Herba de Maria). Credit: Wikipedia, CC BY

Enter the plant *Salvia divinorum 
https://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml*, a type of mint native 
to Mexico. The Mazatecs civilisation's priests would chew its leaves to get 
in touch with the gods.

It's a powerful psychedelic, but not of the usual type. Substances such as 
LSD https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml 
andpsylocibinhttps://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml (the 
active compound in magic mushrooms) mainly act by binding to the 
serotonin neuromodulator receptor proteins.

It is not completely understood how these receptors bring about altered 
states of consciousness, but a reduction of the inhibitory (negative 
feedback) communication between neurons in the cortex likely plays a role.

In contrast, *Salvia divinorum* acts on the kappa-opiate 
receptorshttp://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/ObjectDisplayForward?objectId=318.
 
These are structurally related, but their activation has quite different 
effects

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture



On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:48:25 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:




 On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:50 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript:
  wrote:

 On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
  wrote:


 On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:

 I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens 
 wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to 
 grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...


 Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know 
 enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for 
 biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It 
 could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, 
 or 
 the most likely solution.

 Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. 
 We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other 
 species that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to 
 us 
 - for example, we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't 
 interbreed with them.


 Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were 
 talking about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding. So 
 functional similarity might be enough, as alluded in sheep are nervous. :)

 Well if you're just talking about something you can put your dick in (or 
 an alien can put their proboscis in), that's a (ahem) broad range of items, 
 depending on your tastes (See A melon for ecstasy and The unrepentant 
 necrophile for some suggestions for things one can have sex with in this 
 sense, should one be so inclined).


 Interesting stuff. When I was a teenager, me and some friends would 
 pretend that we ran a necrophilia fanzine. We would have conversations 
 about it, just to disturb people in hearing range. The title of this 
 fictitious publication was Formaldehyde. Life can get excruciatingly 
 boring in small towns...
  


 However your original reply (in blue above) certainly *appeared* to be 
 talking about interbreeding. (Or did you mean humanoid forms are the only 
 viable solution for fetishists who happen to get their kicks from anally 
 probing members of other species ?)


 Ok, I wasn't so clear. My speculation was somewhere in the middle: that 
 species can exist that may not necessarily interbreed but are sufficiently 
 similar to be sexually attractive to each other -- or, more precisely, to 
 elements of each other's species with common sexual tastes.

 So the reason why I find this sort of speculation interesting is that we 
 assume a hypothetical diversity in the tree of possible organisms of 
 human-level intelligence or above. It is compelling to assume high 
 diversity, given the combinatorial explosion of possibilities afforded by 
 DNA encoding and the biological diversity we can observe on earth. But we 
 don't really know.

 A counter-hypothesis is that, as complexity increases, the space of viable 
 solutions gets smaller. In an extreme case, it could be that human-level 
 intelligence always requires humanoids. Even taking our friends the 
 orangutans and bonobos. Suppose they keep evolving until they reach 
 human-level intelligence. They are quite close now. Maybe they will lose 
 their fur and develop more and more human-like features until they become 
 sexually attractive to regular humans.


oink - I think the hypothesis makes a lot of sense. An even more 
constrained version would that the evolutionary paths to that converged 
space of viable solutions, are themselves extremely improbable  the 
possibility space of evolutionary histories. which may itself be 
constrained by the possibility space of worlds and behind that solar system 
evolutions. This bitch could be constrained all the way back man,. forget 
turtles; constraints.


 I am not saying that this is the case, or even that I have any evidence 
 for it. What I do know, from experimenting with evolutionary computation, 
 is that we should be suspicious of our intuitions when it comes to such 
 highly complex systems.

 Best,
 Telmo.
  

  
 But anyway  OK, aliens *may* want to have sex with humans, just as a 
 human *may* want to have sex with orangutans - but generally they won't, 
 because sexual attraction is fairly fine tuned, both by evolution and 
 social norms (indeed it's so fine tuned that species that could in theory 
 interbreed often don't) - and, at least in my experience, most humans don't 
 even want to have sex with most other humans . never mind fancying 
 members of a different species who will almost certainly give out all the 
 wrong visual, behavioural, and chemical cues.

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

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture



On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely 
 useless.   Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be 
 organized...all


I was actually quoting someone else the. But the confusion is my fault as I 
failed to format things properly. Gene McCarthy - chap I was quoting was 
talking specifically about dna sequence data. Part of what I was commenting 
on, was that while he's right about the data that is there, he overlooks 
that a whole chromosome is missing for that condition, and a missing bunch 
of sequence is the same as difference sequence.”

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-05-28 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-05-28 17:45 GMT+02:00 ghib...@gmail.com:



 On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely
 useless.   Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be
 organized...all


 I was actually quoting someone else the. But the confusion is my fault as
 I failed to format things properly. Gene McCarthy - chap I was quoting was
 talking specifically about dna sequence data. Part of what I was commenting
 on, was that while he's right about the data that is there, he overlooks
 that a whole chromosome is missing


No chromosomes are missing, there is on the contrary a supernumerary
chromosome 21 hence also the name trisomy 21.  So I don't understand how
sequencing data could be useless because those datas contains that fact...

Quentin


 for that condition, and a missing bunch of sequence is the same as
 difference sequence.”

 --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: TRONNIES

2014-05-28 Thread John Ross

Good thinking. 

 

However, if charge is spread evenly over a sphere, parts of the charge would be 
touching adjacent parts so they would repel each other.

 

As to your last question, the  answer is simple.

 

Tronnies combine to make three things: electrons (three tronnies), positrons 
(three tronnies) and entrons (two tronnies).  Each photon is comprised of one 
entron.  Everything else in our Universe is comprised of electrons, positrons 
and entrons.  A proton is comprised of two positrons and an electron that has 
captured a neutrino entron with a mass of 1.65 X 10-27 kg.  The proton that is 
the nucleus of hydrogen atoms also contains several (I estimate about 15) gamma 
ray entrons (see Chapter VIII).   These are the composite building blocks of 
our Universe.  For Standard Model folks a neutron is a proton, an electron and 
a gamma ray entron, but its life time is only 15 minutes (whether it is inside 
or outside nuclei). 

 

John R.

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 5:28 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

 

On 28 May 2014 12:03, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

Some of you seem to think the relativity theories and the Standard Model are 
fact.  Last time I looked they were still regarded as theories.  I know  there 
is lots of evidence that support these theories.  There is just as much (maybe 
more) evidence to support my theory.  A lot has been learned in the past 100 
years that Albert Einstein was not aware of when he did his work.  So in that 
respect I have an advantage over him.

 

Well, except that just about all the evidence that has come in since 1915 has 
supported relativity theory. I don't think there are any widely accepted pieces 
of data that contradict SR or GR, unlike Newtonian gravitation, which I believe 
had a problem with the perihelion of Mercury long before Einstein explained it. 
So in that sense Einstein has the advantage of having had his ideas tested for 
a 100 years by lots of independent groups, and to have passed at least 99.9...% 
of these tests (all of which were conducted by people who would have loved to 
have proved him wrong and scooped a Nobel, of course!)

 

As a simple example Coulomb’s Law supports the most important feature of my 
theory.  Coulomb’s Law requires  that all charged particles must be point 
particles or made from point particles.

 

This is a good point, if you'll excuse the pun. However, I'm not aware that 
quantum theory claims that the electron has any internal structure, either. The 
probability of finding one is described by a wave function, which is spread out 
in space, but whenever you actually find one, as far as I know it registers as 
a point particle...???

I can think of a counter example, by the way. I don't suppose it's viable but I 
will just mention it to contribute to the discussion. As far as I know, 
Coulomb's law also allows charge to be spread evenly over the surface of a 
hollow sphere, in which case there is no repulsive force inside the sphere. So 
one can imagine particles being hollow spheres, as long as they can withstand 
the finite repulsive force that wouldf be trying to blow it apart, they would 
remain intact. I'm not saying this is a viable model for electrons, but it does 
imply that it may at least be possible for Coulomb's law to support non-point 
particle models...I'm still trying to think of a snappy name for my hollow 
sphere particle model, though. (Somehow a load of balls doesn't quite cut 
it...)

 

Do any of you believe that there are an equal number of electrons and positrons 
in our Universe?  Remember electrons and positrons are created in pairs and 
destroyed in pairs.  (Where are the missing positrons?)

 

Another interesting point. As far as I know the only existing answer involves 
symmetry splitting (plus perhaps some hand waving). However, the Tronnie theory 
would still have to explain why some collections of tronnies prefer to form 
into massive particles and some prefer to form light ones - one particle being 
around 1836 times the mass of the other. (This is also asymmetric behaviour, of 
course...)

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-05-28 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Hugh Everett the 3rd, Bryce DeWitt, and John Archibald Wheeler, are mankind's' 
friends.


(movie was loosely based on MWI)



-Original Message-
From: Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 11:20 am
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like


Just wanted to extend a hearty thanks to the list - just watched The Prestige 
last night. What a stunning movie - my mind is blown. If you're on this list 
and you haven't seen it, that's something you need to correct! :-)


Terren




On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Martin Abramson martinabrams...@gmail.com 
wrote:

Yes, the 4 superstars performing and explaining some stunning illusions all 
done with brilliant fx.




On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:41 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_You_See_Me_%28film%29 ?


that was quite fun, a bit incredulity stretching...





On 2 May 2014 01:14, Martin Abramson martinabrams...@gmail.com wrote:



How about:  NOW YOU SEE ME   ?




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:




One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.


There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.


To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might appeal, 
but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least tangentially, and 
in a fictional manner).


I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block univese.


Sadly no one seems to have filmed October the First is Too Late although the 
10-episode epic Doctor Who story The War Games comes close in some 
respects. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Who story was inspired 
by Hoyle's novel, which I think appeared about 3 years beforehand if I remember 
correctly. I would semi-recommend this (but you have to remember that it was 
made in black and white, for viewing as a weekly serial in 1969...)





-- 
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.
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.


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-05-28 Thread John Clark

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:

 Just wanted to extend a hearty thanks to the list - just watched The
 Prestige last night. What a stunning movie - my mind is blown. If you're on
 this list and you haven't seen it, that's something you need to correct! :-)


If you like movies about stage magicians you'll like Now you see me and
The Illusionist, they're very good, but The Prestige may just be the
best movie in the last 15 years.

  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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful
moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran
repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from
truth all the negative propaganda against it is!
Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we start
following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out.
Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the message
itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, Jews, or any
other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or hold any
leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, intentions
and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us when we depart
from this life.

Samiya

On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting to
paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical.
Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between
people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself, but the all the
humbleness in the world, devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the
Imams, and Muftis, instruct otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and Bukhari
are all God given and have predictions that only God would know, it does no
good if the earth gets drowned in blood by seekers of paradise. Unhelpful
indeed.

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:32 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

Here's page 1307 - I would prefer it if you quoted whatever it is you're
referring to rather than giving a link to a (rather difficult to access)
online book, because it doesn't mean much to me...
page1307.png

As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it
certainly isn't a very succinct summary.

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves?

Samiya
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status

Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis
places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter

--
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,

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture



On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:53:27 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2014-05-28 17:45 GMT+02:00 ghi...@gmail.com javascript::



 On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely 
 useless.   Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be 
 organized...all


 I was actually quoting someone else the. But the confusion is my fault as 
 I failed to format things properly. Gene McCarthy - chap I was quoting was 
 talking specifically about dna sequence data. Part of what I was commenting 
 on, was that while he's right about the data that is there, he overlooks 
 that a whole chromosome is missing 


 No chromosomes are missing, there is on the contrary a supernumerary 
 chromosome 21 hence also the name trisomy 21.  So I don't understand how 
 sequencing data could be useless because those datas contains that fact...


I'm sorry to have repeated wrong information...clearly I didn't check my 
own facts from background knowledge which was what I was pointing the 
finger at the other guy for doing. Still, the main objection - that 
dramatically different phenotype does require difference in dna sequence - 
still stands and it appears we agree on that one. thanks for sorting me out 
on the down's. 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-05-28 Thread Telmo Menezes

Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression.
Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for
drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small
publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed.

Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their
husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing
against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for
adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way
and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from
going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending
school.

Homosexuality is considered a crime.

Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment.

So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you
claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran?

Telmo.

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote:

You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on
beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among
people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be
amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is!
Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we
start following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out.
Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the
message itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims,
Jews, or any other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or
hold any leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs,
intentions and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us
when we depart from this life.

Samiya

On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting
to paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical.
Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between
people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself, but the all the
humbleness in the world, devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the
Imams, and Muftis, instruct otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and
Bukhari are all God given and have predictions that only God would know, it
does no good if the earth gets drowned in blood by seekers of paradise.
Unhelpful indeed.

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:32 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it
certainly isn't a very succinct summary.

On 28 May 2014 16:19, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume
it also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical
prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307
]
Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration:
http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves?

On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total
of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system.
[Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his
father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and
the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.
[Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on
the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father!
This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true,
and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath
brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my
brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the
Wise.

Samiya
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five
moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger
than its outer solar system rival Eris.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter

--
You received this

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-05-28 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I am not assuming that it is unethical, but I have pieced together that the 
glorious, afterlife that has  been promised, especially for males, is a sure 
incentive to behave aggressively toward Kufar (infidels). If behaving as such 
pleases the creator, and guarantees a shaheed (martyr) a bevy of interesting 
females to spend one's time with, permanent youth and health, the drinking of 
wine permitted, all this, and more, for the privaledge of pleasing God, dying 
in the fight, and having all this paradise. I congratulate the faithful for 
partaking of this heavenly, vision, for it sounds quite excellent! (Sorry, 
Liz). 

However, it's wrong-headed, just as the Crusades were, in a 'holy' attempt to 
regain 'holy ground' slaughter the the non-Christians, and gain great wealth, 
with the incentive of the son's of the rich could find their fortune and fame 
in pursuit of wealth and Jesus's favor. That was unethical as well, and very, 
murderous, as well. People screw up, because that is the nature of the 
emotional beasts we all are. Thus, misbehavior done in the attempt top gain 
heaven and get one's self rich, is unethical. 

What I am curious about is pushing the envelop for the human condition of 
illness, aging, and death. One area that has gained my attention, the NDE/Sam 
Paria studies, which indicate the possibility of a post Morten survival. 
Interestingly enough. such research has a absolute lack of 'returnee's' saying 
that what they experienced (supposedly) was a demand for war and death. Nobody, 
comes back, and this is worldwide, saying they were told to slay Muslims, 
cross-worshippers, Hindu's, Al Yahoodi, or even Atheists. This, I find 
interesting. The second possibility I think is worth examination, is the notion 
that fantastic computer processing, if we can call it that, could resurrect the 
dead, or exact copies of the dead, to the point, that from memories, brain 
states, physicality, personal identity, they are, indeed, the same person who 
was deceased. Is this madness, a lie? Possibly, but these two areas are a means 
to an end, it is, in essence, the How questions, of How such is accomplished, 
not necessarily, the why?

Such a development, would for sure, alter the behavior of both Umah and Kufar, 
because the world, in the human mind, and the physical universe would be 
changed, and likely, for the better. We shall see if this is just a bit of 
silliness that will be forgotten, or not?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!



You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful 
moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people.  The Quran 
repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from 
truth all the negative propaganda against it is! 
Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we start 
following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out. 
  Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the message 
itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, Jews, or any 
other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or hold any 
leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, intentions 
and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us when we depart 
from this life. 


Samiya 

On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:



For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting to 
paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical. Morality, 
is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between people. God, as he 
exists, can take care of himself, but the all the humbleness in the world, 
devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the Imams, and Muftis, instruct 
otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and Bukhari are all God given and have 
predictions that only God would know, it does no good if the earth gets drowned 
in blood by seekers of paradise. Unhelpful indeed. 



-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:32 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


Here's page 1307 - I would prefer it if you quoted whatever it is you're 
referring to rather than giving a link to a (rather difficult to access) online 
book, because it doesn't mean much to me...

page1307.png


As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it 
certainly isn't a very succinct summary.





On 28 May 2014 16:19, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume it 
also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical 
prostration.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-05-28 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

It depends on what perspective you're coming from, probably.  For folk like 
myself who were raised with an abusive religion and left it for generic 
humanism, I'd recommend against reading the Quran unless you have something 
happier to detox your mind with afterward.  I first read the Quran a couple 
months ago, having been requested to find sections of the Quran that would 
be of interest to a group of humanist Unitarian Universalists.  
Unfortunately, quite large portions of it do consist of graphic threats of 
hellfire and bloodshed.  Most of the rest is, from my perspective, just 
boilerplate theistic superstition.

That's not to say that you can't find something valuable in it, of course.  
Some schools of interpretation do some pretty clever things to cover over 
the nastiness.  But if you're not interested in interpretive games, you'll 
get more value from the Lord of the Rings, or Disney's Frozen, or either 
edition of the TV show Cosmos. :)

-Gabe, lurking due to too much working

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:43:24 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:

 You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on 
 beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among 
 people.  The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be 
 amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! 
 Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we 
 start following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out. 
   Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the 
 message itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, 
 Jews, or any other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or 
 hold any leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, 
 intentions and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us 
 when we depart from this life. 

 Samiya 

 On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:

 For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting 
 to paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical. 
 Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between 
 people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself, but the all the 
 humbleness in the world, devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the 
 Imams, and Muftis, instruct otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and 
 Bukhari are all God given and have predictions that only God would know, it 
 does no good if the earth gets drowned in blood by seekers of paradise. 
 Unhelpful indeed. 


 -Original Message-
 From: LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:
 To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:32 am
 Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

  Here's page 1307 - I would prefer it if you quoted whatever it is you're 
 referring to rather than giving a link to a (rather difficult to access) 
 online book, because it doesn't mean much to me...
  page1307.png
  
 As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it 
 certainly isn't a very succinct summary.
  

 On 28 May 2014 16:19, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume 
 it also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical 
 prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307 
 ]  
 Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration: 
 http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html
  

   

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves?
   

 On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:

 I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total 
 of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system.  
 [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his 
 father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and 
 the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me. 
 [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on 
 the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my 
 father! 
 This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true, 
 and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath 
 brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my 
 brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the 
 Wise. 

  Samiya 
  http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/
  
  

  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:
  
   Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five 
 moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as 
 bigger 
 than its outer solar system rival Eris.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-05-28 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

Yay!  I'd be happy with a larger number of planets in our Solar System.

Incidentally, since the current planet definition says that the object has 
to have cleared the other stuff from its orbit, that means that rogue 
planets aren't planets. :(  And even less importantly, imagine a sci-fi 
story about future humans pushing Mars into sharing an orbit with Earth, 
thus demoting both of them from planethood.

-Gabe

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:35:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an 
 atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its 
 outer solar system rival Eris.



 http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter




-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?



On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:

As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to  
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to  
show that either his premises or his argument is wrong...



Not exactly. The premise can be wrong, true, or indeterminate, without  
making the reasoning invalid. In fact, in the classical frame, a  
refutation of the premise would make the reasoning vacuously valid.  
Now that reasoning shows a means to refute the premise: basically:  
compare the physics found in the head of all universal Turing machine,  
and if it is contradicted by nature then the premise are false (or I,  
or we, are dreaming or live in a second-order reality)






On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to  
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to  
show that either his premises or his argument is wrong...


I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't  
gone down that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did  
try to drop it. I shall probably try again.


Bruno may well be wrong about falsification. I haven't tried to  
follow the arguments you and he have had on the subject, or not very  
much. I know Bruno has said he does have a theory of everything,  
which is subject to falsification... which it seems to me is an  
awful lot to derive from the idea that consciousness arises from  
computation ... but I guess some relatively simple idea can  
sometimes lead to a huge theory ... maybe when (or if) I get to  
grips with the MGA and the logic involved in deriving some features  
of physics from comp, I might have something more sensible to say on  
the matter,



It is always a relief to see that some people can stay rational on the  
fundamental matter.


It is not always easy to distinguish genuine non understanding from  
the nitpicking some philosophers seemed to be trained for.


Then ghibbsa seems to believe that computationalism is false, so he  
wants it not even refutable, as it gives sense that it might be true.  
I don't know.


John Clark is clearer in his refutation of step three, where  
everyone can see that no matter he get his conclusion, at some point  
he has to confuse the first person discourse with the third person  
discourse (when seeing this, Clark usually said don't come back on 1p  
and 3p again (mixed with some vulgar word).


I can understand the comp shock for people unaware of Everett, but  
in this list people are aware of Everett, or of QM without collapse.  
Without the Everett embedding of the subject in the physical reality  
is prolonged into a embedding of the subject in the arithmetical  
reality.



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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to



Nice post!

Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable  
natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that  
salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which  
suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right  
brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools  
(some a bit toxic though, some other not).


Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia  
attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last  
for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well  
after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video  
for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it  
contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the  
plant is capable of).


No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia  
in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for  
different people.


Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of  
differentiation of consciousness.


Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the  
game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement  
should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the  
arithmetical formulation of the measure problem.


Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi- 
arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its  
differentiation will make it seemingly related to special  
representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of  
them is a delusion.


You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you  
believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on  
Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you  
reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use  
comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even  
Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where  
indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM).


Bruno




On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

they were more likely to believe they were in an environment  
completely different from the physical space they were actually in  
- sounds familiar
they often believed to be interacting with beings such as  
hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures  
-- machines
the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in  
which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience.  
-- 3p?






Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?

by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation


The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex  
(green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator.  
The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the  
inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain ...more
Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena  
we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains  
surprisingly poorly understood.



That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently  
making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon.
The main player in this story is something called the claustrum. The  
word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European  
monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of  
neurons just below the cortex, and possibly derived from it in brain  
development.
The cortex is the massive folded layer on top of the brain mainly  
responsible for many higher brain functions such as language, long- 
term planning and our advanced sensory functions.
Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to  
many cortical areas. The visual cortex (the region involved in  
seeing) sends axons (the connecting wires of the nervous system)  
to the claustrum, and also receives axons from the claustrum.
The same is true for the auditory cortex (involved in hearing) and a  
number of other cortex areas. A wealth of information converges in  
the claustrum and leaves it to re-enter the cortex.

The connection
Francis Crick - who together with James Watson gave us the structure  
of DNA - was interested in a connection between the claustrum and  
consciousness.
In a recent paper, published in Frontiers in Integrative  
Neuroscience, we have built on the ideas he described in his very  
last scientific publication.



Crick and co-author Christoph Koch argued that the claustrum could  
be a coordinator of cortical function and hence a conductor of  
consciousness.
Such percepts as colour, form, sound, body position and social  
relations are all represented in different parts of the cortex. How  
are they bound to a unified experience of consciousness? Wouldn't a  
region exerting a (even limited) central control over all these  
cortical areas be highly

Re: Pluto bounces back!


On 5/28/2014 9:50 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral 
principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people.  The Quran repeatedly 
enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative 
propaganda against it is!


Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so 
that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7


Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated. All modern Jews are 
descendants of apes (or all modern apes are descendants of Sabbath-breaking Jews). 2:65-66


Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah. 5:38

Brent

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

2014-05-28 Thread Richard Ruquist

Bruno,
I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's
reality.

My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the
universe is singular
and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction
from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated
ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle
of the best of all possible worlds is selected.

Since comp predicts consciousness
and presumably a universal consciousness
such a consciousness could make the selection
but that is using god to fill a gap.
Richard


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 Nice post!

 Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable
 natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's
 reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some
 disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a
 very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some
 other not).

 Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia
 attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m
 to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless
 the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in
 company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user
 guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of).

 No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in
 the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for
 different people.

 Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation
 of consciousness.

 Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game,
 and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not
 just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical
 formulation of the measure problem.

 Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi-arithmetical
 notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it
 seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory,
 and the uniqueness of them is a delusion.

 You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe
 that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you
 told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is
 normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and
 indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose
 suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in
 a way non predictible by QM).

 Bruno




 On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


- they were more likely to believe they were in an environment
completely different from the physical space they were actually in -
sounds familiar
- they often believed to be interacting with beings such as
hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures --
machines
- the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in
which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. --
3p?



 Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The
 Conversation
 [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
 The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green),
 another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose
 brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right
 corner). Credit: Brain 
 …morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html

 Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we
 humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains
 surprisingly poorly understood.

 That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making
 interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon.

 The main player in this story is something called the 
 claustrumhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum.
 The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European
 monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of
 neurons just below the 
 cortexhttp://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/cerebral-cortex.htm,
 and possibly derived from it in brain development.

 The cortex http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortex/ is the massive folded
 layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain
 functions such as language, long-term planning and our advanced sensory
 functions.

 Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many 
 cortical
 areas http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortical+areas/. The visual 
 cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+cortex/ (the
 region involved in seeing) sends axons (the connecting wires of the
 nervous system) to the claustrum, and also

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-05-28 Thread Alberto G. Corona

When a discipline spend so much time in vacuous definitions, it is not
a good sign.

iWho knows maybe the next year a new gender studies on planetary
bodies would help with some new recomendations

2014-05-28 16:58 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

On 28 May 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote:

Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status

Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis
places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter

Good news!

I have never really understood the disgrace of Pluto.

To me, something big enough and quasi-spherical, and heavy enough to
go around a star, is a planet enough.

I know that definition might made the number of Solar Planets very
big, but in the everything list that should not be a problem. How
many? About 2014 I think :)

Bruno

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

--
Alberto.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and therefore
 consciousness) can exist without physics.  That physical instantiation is
 dispensable.


  Yes indeed. I would say that for comp to be meaningful, it's necessary
 to show that information is a real (and fundamental) thing, rather than
 something that only has relevance / meaning to us - I suppose deriving the
 entropy of a black hole, the Beckenstein bound and the holographic
 principle all hint that this is the case. (Maybe QM unitarity and the black
 hole information paradox too?)

 I'm not sure how secure a footing any of these items put the reification
 of information it on, though.

 As Bruno has noted, we live on border between order and chaos - neither
 maximum nor minimum information/entropy but something like complexity.
 Here's recent survey of ways to quantify it by Scott Aaronso, Sean Carroll
 and Lauren Ouellette. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1818


As usual I don't have time to read that paper, at least not immediately.
However I see that defining complexity appear to require coarse graining.
If so, I would take this to mean that there isn't anything fundamental
being defined - or at least that we're in a grey area where nothing is
known to be fundamental. On the other hand, entropy used to require coarse
graining but as I mentioned above has now been defined for black holes, so
assuming BHs really exist (and the things we think are BHs aren't some
other type of massive object of an undefined nature) that would at least
suggest that fundamental physics involves entropy, and hence information.

Is there any complexity measure that doesn;t involve CG and hence isn't
just (imho) in the eye of the beholder ?

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: TRONNIES

On 29 May 2014 03:55, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

 Good thinking.



 However, if charge is spread evenly over a sphere, parts of the charge
 would be touching adjacent parts so they would repel each other.


But the repulsion would be finite, which was my point. In fact any shape
object with evenly spread charge on its surface would have a finite
repulsive force, and hence could hold together, so Coulomb's law doesn't
mandate point particles after all.



 As to your last question, the  answer is simple.


I'm sure it is, but this isn't it:



 Tronnies combine to make three things: electrons (three tronnies),
 positrons (three tronnies) and entrons (two tronnies).  Each photon is
 comprised of one entron.  Everything else in our Universe is comprised of
 electrons, positrons and entrons.  A proton is comprised of two positrons
 and an electron that has captured a neutrino entron with a mass of 1.65 X 10
 -27 kg.  The proton that is the nucleus of hydrogen atoms also contains
 several (I estimate about 15) gamma ray entrons (see Chapter VIII).   These
 are the composite building blocks of our Universe.  For Standard Model
 folks a neutron is a proton, an electron and a gamma ray entron, but its
 life time is only 15 minutes (whether it is inside or outside nuclei).



The question was, where does the asymmetry come from? You said T-theory
explains the apparent imbalance between electrons and positrons, I pointed
out that it also needs to explain the imbalance between electrons and
protons - if you're right, you've explained a *numerical *asymmetry, but
there is still an *organisational* asymmetry that is unexplained. That is,
why aren't there an equal number of positrons and antiprotons as there are
electrons and protons?

Do you see the problem? Without an explanation for why that asymmetry
exists (as opposed to merely explaining how the particles that exist are
put together) you haven't got any further than the physicists who are
baffled by the imbalance of electrons and positrons, because you have an
(at least) equally baffling imbalance.

(I say at least equally baffling because ISTM that symmetry breaking at the
more fundamental level of electrons and quarks should be easier to explain
than at the higher level of how the components organise themselves into
non-fundamental particles.)

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

Also, you should watch the entirety of Jonathan Creek (except perhaps for
the last few episodes, in which the writer appears to have gone slightly
off the rails unfortunately). But certainly the first few series' are well
worth watching. It's like David Renwick's a (far more prolific)
reincarnation of Clayton Rawson.


On 29 May 2014 04:40, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Terren Suydam 
 terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:

  Just wanted to extend a hearty thanks to the list - just watched The
 Prestige last night. What a stunning movie - my mind is blown. If you're on
 this list and you haven't seen it, that's something you need to correct! :-)


 If you like movies about stage magicians you'll like Now you see me and
 The Illusionist, they're very good, but The Prestige may just be the
 best movie in the last 15 years.

   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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 29 May 2014 00:48, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 Interesting stuff. When I was a teenager, me and some friends would
 pretend that we ran a necrophilia fanzine. We would have conversations
 about it, just to disturb people in hearing range. The title of this
 fictitious publication was Formaldehyde. Life can get excruciatingly
 boring in small towns...

 A living death, indeed.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: TRONNIES

2014-05-28 Thread John Ross

There are an equal number of electrons and positrons in our Universe.  Each 
proton includes two positrons and only one electron.  So the number of 
electrons outside of protons is equal to the number of positrons outside of 
protons plus half of the number of positrons inside protons.  I think I did 
that right.  My point is that the missing positrons are the extra positrons in 
the protons.

 

You asked why aren’t there an equal number of positrons and anti-protons.   An 
anti-proton is comprised of two electrons plus a high energy positron that has 
captured a neutrino entron with a mass of 1.65 X 10-27 kg, exactly opposite the 
proton.  Therefore, each anti-proton created removes two electrons but only one 
positron from the population of electrons and positrons .  So there may be an 
equal number of positrons and anti-protons.  This is a very good question.  
I’ll have to think about it some more. 

 

What I am fairly certain of (I would normally say “believe”) is that the number 
of electrons and positrons in our Universe is equal, but some of each are 
contained in protons and anti-protons.  The number of plus and minus tronnies 
in our Universe is also equal.  The number of protons and anti-protons are not 
equal.  

 

In Black Holes there is a relatively large number of free positrons and a large 
number of neutrino entrons due to the destruction of protons in the Black 
Holes.  There is also a large number of free electrons.  Therefore in Black 
Holes you have all you need to make anti-protons,  So large numbers of 
anti-protons are made in Black Holes.  So after they are made, they combine 
with a proton and both the proton and the anti-proton are destroyed releasing 
all of the electrons and positrons in both particles.  Two neutrino entrons are 
also released.  Most of these neutrino entrons are released from the Black Hole 
to produce the gravity of its galaxy.  Some combine with electrons and 
positrons to produce either protons or anti-protons.  Each anti-proton produced 
will result in the destruction of another proton and anti-proton.  I calculate 
that if the Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy consumes the 
equivalent of an earth-size planet per day the resulting neutrino photon flux 
at our earth would be about 68,000 neutrino photons/m2 second.  See Chapter XX. 
 

 

JohnR.

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:49 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

On 29 May 2014 03:55, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

Good thinking. 

 

However, if charge is spread evenly over a sphere, parts of the charge would be 
touching adjacent parts so they would repel each other.

 

But the repulsion would be finite, which was my point. In fact any shape object 
with evenly spread charge on its surface would have a finite repulsive force, 
and hence could hold together, so Coulomb's law doesn't mandate point particles 
after all.

 

As to your last question, the  answer is simple.

 

I'm sure it is, but this isn't it: 

 

Tronnies combine to make three things: electrons (three tronnies), positrons 
(three tronnies) and entrons (two tronnies).  Each photon is comprised of one 
entron.  Everything else in our Universe is comprised of electrons, positrons 
and entrons.  A proton is comprised of two positrons and an electron that has 
captured a neutrino entron with a mass of 1.65 X 10-27 kg.  The proton that is 
the nucleus of hydrogen atoms also contains several (I estimate about 15) gamma 
ray entrons (see Chapter VIII).   These are the composite building blocks of 
our Universe.  For Standard Model folks a neutron is a proton, an electron and 
a gamma ray entron, but its life time is only 15 minutes (whether it is inside 
or outside nuclei). 

 

The question was, where does the asymmetry come from? You said T-theory 
explains the apparent imbalance between electrons and positrons, I pointed out 
that it also needs to explain the imbalance between electrons and protons - if 
you're right, you've explained a numerical asymmetry, but there is still an 
organisational asymmetry that is unexplained. That is, why aren't there an 
equal number of positrons and antiprotons as there are electrons and protons?

Do you see the problem? Without an explanation for why that asymmetry exists 
(as opposed to merely explaining how the particles that exist are put together) 
you haven't got any further than the physicists who are baffled by the 
imbalance of electrons and positrons, because you have an (at least) equally 
baffling imbalance.

(I say at least equally baffling because ISTM that symmetry breaking at the 
more fundamental level of electrons and quarks should be easier to explain than 
at the higher level of how the components organise themselves into 
non-fundamental particles.)

 

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

Re: TRONNIES

I may have been a bit harsh on you for using believe - it's OK in general
discussions to mean something like this is what I think is likely but
becomes a more loaded term when used to indicate something more outrageous,
for example, that you don't think time dilation occurs. At that point it
starts to sound like the argument from incredulity - I just can't
believe that such a weird thing could happen! or words to that effect.
Which is an argument that modern science has discredited many times (I
can't beleive the Earth orbits the Sun! - I can't believe humans
descended from apes! - etc)

I would recommend continuing to use it in the first, uncontentious sense,
where it's merely a qualifier, but being more careful how you phrase things
when you're making what most people consider a outrageous claim.

On 29 May 2014 12:51, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

 There are an equal number of electrons and positrons in our Universe.
 Each proton includes two positrons and only one electron.  So the number of
 electrons outside of protons is equal to the number of positrons outside of
 protons plus half of the number of positrons inside protons.  I think I did
 that right.  My point is that the missing positrons are the extra positrons
 in the protons.



 You asked why aren’t there an equal number of positrons and
 anti-protons.   An anti-proton is comprised of two electrons plus a high
 energy positron that has captured a neutrino entron with a mass of 1.65 X 10
 -27 kg, exactly opposite the proton.  Therefore, each anti-proton created
 removes two electrons but only one positron from the population of
 electrons and positrons .  So there may be an equal number of positrons and
 anti-protons.  This is a very good question.  I’ll have to think about it
 some more.


That is indeed the $64,000 question!



 What I am fairly certain of (I would normally say “believe”) is that the
 number of electrons and positrons in our Universe is equal, but some of
 each are contained in protons and anti-protons.  The number of plus and
 minus tronnies in our Universe is also equal.  The number of protons and
 anti-protons are not equal.


Yes, which is what I was hoping you'd be able to explain - if you can, that
will (I believe :-) put you one up on existing theories.



 In Black Holes there is a relatively large number of free positrons and a
 large number of neutrino entrons due to the destruction of protons in the
 Black Holes.  There is also a large number of free electrons.  Therefore in
 Black Holes you have all you need to make anti-protons,  So large numbers
 of anti-protons are made in Black Holes.  So after they are made, they
 combine with a proton and both the proton and the anti-proton are destroyed
 releasing all of the electrons and positrons in both particles.  Two
 neutrino entrons are also released.  Most of these neutrino entrons are
 released from the Black Hole to produce the gravity of its galaxy.  Some
 combine with electrons and positrons to produce either protons or
 anti-protons.  Each anti-proton produced will result in the destruction of
 another proton and anti-proton.  I calculate that if the Black Hole in the
 center of the Milky Way galaxy consumes the equivalent of an earth-size
 planet per day the resulting neutrino photon flux at our earth would be
 about 68,000 neutrino photons/m2 second.  See Chapter XX.


I'm not sure about any of that. I think dealing with the symmetry question
might help.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Should animals be treated as people?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/innovators/2014/05/140528-lori-marino-dolphins-animals-personhood-blackfish-taiji-science-world/?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Socialutm_content=link_tw20140528news-loriutm_campaign=Contentsf3097303=1

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Should animals be treated as people?


On 5/28/2014 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/innovators/2014/05/140528-lori-marino-dolphins-animals-personhood-blackfish-taiji-science-world/?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Socialutm_content=link_tw20140528news-loriutm_campaign=Contentsf3097303=1


The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer?
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Should animals be treated as people?

On 29 May 2014 13:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 5/28/2014 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:

 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/innovators/2014/05/140528-
 lori-marino-dolphins-animals-personhood-blackfish-taiji-
 science-world/?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Socialutm_
 content=link_tw20140528news-loriutm_campaign=Contentsf3097303=1


 The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they
 suffer?
 Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)


Ah, so consciousness *is* both more difficult and more important than
intelligence!

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Should animals be treated as people?


On 5/28/2014 6:48 PM, LizR wrote:

On 29 May 2014 13:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/innovators/2014/05/140528-lori-marino-dolphins-animals-personhood-blackfish-taiji-science-world/?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Socialutm_content=link_tw20140528news-loriutm_campaign=Contentsf3097303=1


The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they 
suffer?
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)


Ah, so consciousness /is/ both more difficult and more important than 
intelligence!


I don't think it's more difficult - I think some very unintelligent animals can suffer.  
Of course there are different kinds of suffering. I doubt that suffering pain requires 
human-like consciousness, but suffering existential angst probably does.


Brent

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Should animals be treated as people?

On 29 May 2014 13:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:48 PM, LizR wrote:

On 29 May 2014 13:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/innovators/2014/05/140528-lori-marino-dolphins-animals-personhood-blackfish-taiji-science-world/?utm_source=Twitterutm_medium=Socialutm_content=link_tw20140528news-loriutm_campaign=Contentsf3097303=1

The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they
suffer?
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Ah, so consciousness *is* both more difficult and more important than
intelligence!

I don't think it's more difficult - I think some very unintelligent
animals can suffer. Of course there are different kinds of suffering. I
doubt that suffering pain requires human-like consciousness, but suffering
existential angst probably does.

No one mentioned huiman like consciousness (well, no one except you).

Consciousness is required for suffering, and we have very little idea which
animals are conscious. Whereas we can tell how intelligent animals are by
looking at their behaviour - their ability to learn and to deal with novel
situations etc. Hence consciousness is more difficult to detect than
intelligence.

And if one believes your quote, it's also more important.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

2014-05-28 Thread jasonre...@gmail.com

Richard, 

I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. 

Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe 
that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in 
aggregate contain all possible universes? 

Jason

- Reply message -
From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 2:39 PM


Bruno,
I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's
reality.

My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the
universe is singular
and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction
from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated
ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle
of the best of all possible worlds is selected.

Since comp predicts consciousness
and presumably a universal consciousness
such a consciousness could make the selection
but that is using god to fill a gap.
Richard


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 Nice post!

 Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable
 natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's
 reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some
 disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a
 very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some
 other not).

 Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia
 attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m
 to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless
 the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in
 company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user
 guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of).

 No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in
 the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for
 different people.

 Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation
 of consciousness.

 Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game,
 and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not
 just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical
 formulation of the measure problem.

 Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi-arithmetical
 notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it
 seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory,
 and the uniqueness of them is a delusion.

 You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe
 that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you
 told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is
 normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and
 indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose
 suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in
 a way non predictible by QM).

 Bruno




 On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


- they were more likely to believe they were in an environment
completely different from the physical space they were actually in -
sounds familiar
- they often believed to be interacting with beings such as
hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures --
machines
- the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in
which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. --
3p?



 Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The
 Conversation
 [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
 The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green),
 another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose
 brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right
 corner). Credit: Brain 
 …morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html

 Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we
 humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains
 surprisingly poorly understood.

 That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making
 interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon.

 The main player in this story is something called the 
 claustrumhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum.
 The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European
 monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of
 neurons just below the 
 cortexhttp://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/cerebral-cortex.htm,
 and possibly derived from it in brain development.

 The cortex http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortex/ is the massive folded
 layer

Re: Should animals be treated as people?

On 5/28/2014 7:14 PM, LizR wrote:

On 29 May 2014 13:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:48 PM, LizR wrote:

On 29 May 2014 13:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:

The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they
suffer?
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Ah, so consciousness /is/ both more difficult and more important than
intelligence!

I don't think it's more difficult - I think some very unintelligent animals
can
suffer. Of course there are different kinds of suffering. I doubt that
suffering
pain requires human-like consciousness, but suffering existential angst
probably does.

No one mentioned huiman like consciousness (well, no one except you).

I mentioned it to raise the point that there are different kinds of consciousness and that
implies different kinds of potential suffering. Even simple animals are conscious of the
status of their bodies and so they can suffer pain - but probably not boredom.

Consciousness is required for suffering, and we have very little idea which animals are
conscious. Whereas we can tell how intelligent animals are by looking at their behaviour
- their ability to learn and to deal with novel situations etc. Hence consciousness is
more difficult to detect than intelligence.

And if one believes your quote, it's also more important.

Yes, I think it is more important. We would have no ethical qualms about destroying an
intelligent computer if we thought it was not conscious (e.g. Watson). But I think it's
impossible to completely separate the two.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!



 On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
 
 Ok, so let's talk some specifics.
 
 Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously 
 on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing 
 Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was 
 bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. 

The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those 
who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe 
any of the above forms of punishment. 

 
 Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their 
 husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against 
 consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even 
 when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be 
 publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. 
 Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school.
 
The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers (not rape 
victim);  for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if the witnesses 
are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who give false witness, 
and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any other case. 

Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the interpretation of 
the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which is advised, not 
beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it means beating. I 
disagree. 

Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of  their bosoms with scarf; head 
covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional in almost all religions. 
Mother Mary's statues all show her head covered. Muslims did not make those 
statues. Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men and women, used 
to wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures. 
The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when going out, 
if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise? 

 Homosexuality is considered a crime.
 
Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16 contains 
guidance for how to deal with this crime. 

 Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment.
 
Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe it is 
implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very low. However, I 
have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be implemented in an ideal 
Islamic welfare society where excuses / rationale for theft are almost 
non-existent, and thereby stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any need for 
survival. 

 So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you 
 claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? 

I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept 
everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. 
However, on this forum, I only invite you all to benefit from the factual 
accuracy of the Quran in your efforts to understand the world of science. I am 
not asking anyone to become a Muslim. Faith, we believe, is God's gift to the 
willing heart. 

Samiya 

 
 Telmo.
 
 
 
 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful 
 moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people.  The 
 Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far 
 from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! 
 Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we 
 start following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out. 
   Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the 
 message itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, 
 Jews, or any other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or 
 hold any leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, 
 intentions and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us 
 when we depart from this life. 
 
 Samiya 
 
 On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
 For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting 
 to paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical. 
 Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between 
 people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself, but the all the 
 humbleness in the world, devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the 
 Imams, and Muftis, instruct otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and 
 Bukhari are all God given and have predictions that only God would know, it 
 does no good if the earth gets drowned in blood by seekers of paradise. 
 Unhelpful indeed. 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To:

Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men and women, used to
 wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures.

 This was sensible, since diseases were far more prevalent, and far less
curable, and people lose a lot of heat from their heads, which cools the
body, which I believe can make one more prone to catching diseases. Plus
there wasn't such a thing as sunscreen, and so on. So generally hats were a
good thing (Glen or Glenda? notwithstanding :)

(Covering yourself entirely in dark coloured clothing in a hot climate
doesn't seem SO sensible, however.)

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 Homosexuality is considered a crime.

 Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16
 contains guidance for how to deal with this crime.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!



 On 28-May-2014, at 10:21 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
 I am not assuming that it is unethical, but I have pieced together that the 
 glorious, afterlife that has  been promised, especially for males, is a sure 
 incentive to behave aggressively toward Kufar (infidels). If behaving as such 
 pleases the creator, and guarantees a shaheed (martyr) a bevy of interesting 
 females to spend one's time with, permanent youth and health, the drinking of 
 wine permitted, all this, and more, for the privaledge of pleasing God, dying 
 in the fight, and having all this paradise. I congratulate the faithful for 
 partaking of this heavenly, vision, for it sounds quite excellent! (Sorry, 
 Liz). 

Quran (33:35) clearly states that there is forgiveness and vast reward for all 
men and women who submit, believe, obey, speak the truth, persevere, who are 
humble, who give alms, who fast, who guard their modesty and who remember Allah 
much. 
Many other verses also highlight the significance of struggle (jihad) which 
means overcoming our personal weaknesses and making kind, good and positive 
contributions to society and religion. 
Fighting wars ( qital ) is mentioned in the verses dealing with war. In that 
context, it is important to understand divine tradition. Every time he has sent 
a messenger ( rasul ), divine judgement follows it. Noah, Lot, ..., Moses, and 
finally Muhammad are examples of such human messengers. The people to whom 
Muhammad was preaching were being repeatedly warned of punishment and that God 
and His messenger will prevail. In the case of the previous messengers, 
punishment was in the form of floods, earthquakes, storms and other such 
natural disasters. In Muhammad's case, it was through the hands of the 
believers. You can read more on this in my blog post: Verses regarding War (The 
Holy Quran, Ch 9) dated Nov 17, 2009  www.islam-qna.blogspot.com 
 
 
 However, it's wrong-headed, just as the Crusades were, in a 'holy' attempt to 
 regain 'holy ground' slaughter the the non-Christians, and gain great wealth, 
 with the incentive of the son's of the rich could find their fortune and fame 
 in pursuit of wealth and Jesus's favor. That was unethical as well, and very, 
 murderous, as well. People screw up, because that is the nature of the 
 emotional beasts we all are. Thus, misbehavior done in the attempt top gain 
 heaven and get one's self rich, is unethical. 
 
 What I am curious about is pushing the envelop for the human condition of 
 illness, aging, and death. One area that has gained my attention, the NDE/Sam 
 Paria studies, which indicate the possibility of a post Morten survival. 
 Interestingly enough. such research has a absolute lack of 'returnee's' 
 saying that what they experienced (supposedly) was a demand for war and 
 death. Nobody, comes back, and this is worldwide, saying they were told to 
 slay Muslims, cross-worshippers, Hindu's, Al Yahoodi, or even Atheists. 
 This, I find interesting. The second possibility I think is worth 
 examination, is the notion that fantastic computer processing, if we can call 
 it that, could resurrect the dead, or exact copies of the dead, to the point, 
 that from memories, brain states, physicality, personal identity, they are, 
 indeed, the same person who was deceased. Is this madness, a lie? Possibly, 
 but these two areas are a means to an end, it is, in essence, the How 
 questions, of How such is accomplished, not necessarily, the why?
 
 Such a development, would for sure, alter the behavior of both Umah and 
 Kufar, because the world, in the human mind, and the physical universe would 
 be changed, and likely, for the better. We shall see if this is just a bit of 
 silliness that will be forgotten, or not?
 
According to the Quran, immortality has not been given to any before thee 
(21:34) and goes on to state that every soul must taste death; we are being 
tried with evil and good, and then we must return (21:35). 
Quran (2:96) states the possibility of a lifespan of a thousand years. However, 
from another verse, we also know that Noah preached for 950 years, so such a 
life span has happened in the past and may be possible in the future. 
The clue to the How may be found in the studies in hibernation. I've recently 
published a blog post about the People of the Cave, who slept for three hundred 
years. You might find it interesting: www.signsandscience.blogspot.com 

Samiya 

 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:43 pm
 Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
 
 You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful 
 moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people.  The 
 Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far 
 from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! 
 Whether people

Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe it is
 implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very low. However, I
 have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be implemented in an
 ideal Islamic welfare society where excuses / rationale for theft are
 almost non-existent, and thereby stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any
 need for survival.

 Yes, that's a good excuse not to look into the socio-economic causes of
poverty.

Hands off Salman Rushdie!
Why, what's he done now?

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Should animals be treated as people?

On 29 May 2014 15:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 7:14 PM, LizR wrote:

On 29 May 2014 13:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:48 PM, LizR wrote:

On 29 May 2014 13:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:

The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they
suffer?
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Ah, so consciousness *is* both more difficult and more important than
intelligence!

No one mentioned huiman like consciousness (well, no one except you).

I mentioned it to raise the point that there are different kinds of
consciousness and that implies different kinds of potential suffering.
Even simple animals are conscious of the status of their bodies and so they
can suffer pain - but probably not boredom.

True (although it doesn't obviously support the statement I don't think
it's more difficult)

Consciousness is required for suffering, and we have very little idea
which animals are conscious. Whereas we can tell how intelligent animals
are by looking at their behaviour - their ability to learn and to deal with
novel situations etc. Hence consciousness is more difficult to detect than
intelligence.

And if one believes your quote, it's also more important.

Yes, I think it is more important. We would have no ethical qualms about
destroying an intelligent computer if we thought it was not conscious (e.g.
Watson). But I think it's impossible to completely separate the two.

If you can have an intelligent but not conscious computer it is.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do
 you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran?

 I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I
 accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof.


Another non-answer. Maybe you should have tried one question at a time. Let
me have a go.

Samiya, you agreed that limb amputation is prescribed by the Quran. Do you
condemn this action?

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!


On 5/28/2014 9:31 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Quran (33:35) clearly states that there is forgiveness and vast reward for all men and 
women who submit, believe, obey, speak the truth, persevere, who are humble, who give 
alms, who fast, who guard their modesty and who remember Allah much.


Clearly stating something has no bearing on it's truth.  The above is nonsense.  Why 
should forgiveness be needed? - and if it were it would have to come from someone who was 
harmed; not from an imaginary superbeing who can't possibly be harmed.  And why should 
anyone submit...to whom?  Where is the virtue in giving up your own moral judgement and 
living by someone else's.  Of course when you take these questions seriously the answer is 
obvious: Allah is just extrapolation of every despotic Mesopotamian king.  He's vain, 
jealous, cruel, ruthless, demanding and ignorant.


Brent

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

I hate to use the argument from incredulity, but it really IS hard to
imagine that someone who's so petty they don't like gays could have made
this...





On 29 May 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 5/28/2014 9:31 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Quran (33:35) clearly states that there is forgiveness and vast reward for
 all men and women who submit, believe, obey, speak the truth, persevere,
 who are humble, who give alms, who fast, who guard their modesty and who
 remember Allah much.


 Clearly stating something has no bearing on it's truth.  The above is
 nonsense.  Why should forgiveness be needed? - and if it were it would have
 to come from someone who was harmed; not from an imaginary superbeing who
 can't possibly be harmed.  And why should anyone submit...to whom?  Where
 is the virtue in giving up your own moral judgement and living by someone
 else's.  Of course when you take these questions seriously the answer is
 obvious: Allah is just extrapolation of every despotic Mesopotamian
 king.  He's vain, jealous, cruel, ruthless, demanding and ignorant.

 Brent

 --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!


Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a god superior to
themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled
child.
  --- Robert A. Heinlein

On 5/28/2014 9:59 PM, LizR wrote:
I hate to use the argument from incredulity, but it really IS hard to imagine that 
someone who's so petty they don't like gays could have made this...






On 29 May 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 5/28/2014 9:31 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

Quran (33:35) clearly states that there is forgiveness and vast reward for 
all men
and women who submit, believe, obey, speak the truth, persevere, who are 
humble,
who give alms, who fast, who guard their modesty and who remember Allah 
much.


Clearly stating something has no bearing on its truth. The above is 
nonsense.  Why
should forgiveness be needed? - and if it were it would have to come from 
someone
who was harmed; not from an imaginary superbeing who can't possibly be 
harmed.  And
why should anyone submit...to whom?  Where is the virtue in giving up your 
own moral
judgement and living by someone else's.  Of course when you take these 
questions
seriously the answer is obvious: Allah is just extrapolation of every 
despotic
Mesopotamian king.  He's vain, jealous, cruel, ruthless, demanding and 
ignorant.

Brent



--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

2014-05-28 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jasonre...@gmail.com jasonre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Richard,

 I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe.

 Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single
 universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which
 only in aggregate contain all possible universes?


Neither is religiously acceptable
Richard

 Jason



 - Reply message -
 From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
 Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 2:39 PM


 Bruno,
 I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's
 reality.

 My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the
 universe is singular
 and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction
 from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated
 ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle
 of the best of all possible worlds is selected.

 Since comp predicts consciousness
 and presumably a universal consciousness
 such a consciousness could make the selection
 but that is using god to fill a gap.
 Richard


 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 
  Nice post!
 
  Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable
  natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that
 salvia's
  reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some
  disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it
 is a
  very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some
  other not).
 
  Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia
  attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for
 4m
  to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless
  the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in
  company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the
 user
  guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of).
 
  No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in
  the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for
  different people.
 
  Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of
 differentiation
  of consciousness.
 
  Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game,
  and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not
  just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical
  formulation of the measure problem.
 
  Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi-arithmetical
  notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make
 it
  seemingly related to special representations, but that might be
 transitory,
  and the uniqueness of them is a delusion.
 
  You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you
 believe
  that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think
 you
  told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is
  normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and
  indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose
  suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave
 in
  a way non predictible by QM).
 
  Bruno
 
 
 
 
  On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment

 completely different from the physical space they were actually in
 -
 sounds familiar
 - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as

 hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures
 --
 machines
 - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in

 which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience.
 --
 3p?
 
 
 
  Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The

  Conversation
  [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
  The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green),
  another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person
 whose
  brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right
  corner). Credit: Brain …more
 http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html

 
  Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we
  humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains
  surprisingly poorly understood.
 
  That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making
  interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon.
 
  The main player in this story is something called the claustrum
 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum.

  The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European
  monasteries but in the mammalian brain it

Re: Pluto bounces back!



 On 29-May-2014, at 12:07 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 
 On 5/28/2014 9:50 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
 You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful 
 moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people.  The 
 Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far 
 from truth all the negative propaganda against it is!
 
 Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them 
 to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7 

2:7 speaks of a seal on hearts and 2:9 speaks of a disease in the heart because 
of lying. My blogpost lying Sinful Forelock and Rust Upon Their Hearts may be 
of interest (www.signsandscience.blogspot.com ) However 2:26,27 further 
explains who and why Allah causes to stray. 
If it's any comfort, Allah also promises that everything is being recorded 
(54:53) (99:7,8) (34:2-4) and not the least injustice will be done to anyone.  

We are directed to remind in case the reminder benefits anyone. (6:68,69) 

 
 Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated. All 
 modern Jews are descendants of apes (or all modern apes are descendants of 
 Sabbath-breaking Jews). 2:65-66 

An alternate translation to apes is pigs. My cousin seems to think that we are 
forbidden to eat pigs because that would be cannibalism. I haven't researched 
the evolutionary history of pigs, so I don't know if that follows. However, as 
directed, I don't eat pigs. 

 
 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

I assume this verse, read in context with the preceding and following verses is 
regarding the Prophet and his companions' migration to Medina to escape 
persecution. In today's world also, I think those who are forced to migrate to 
escape war and persecution will be able to better relate to these verses. 

 
 Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah. 5:38 

My responses to Telmo and Spudboy earlier today address this. 

Samiya 

 
 Brent
 -- 
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!