Re: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
But they cannot cancel to high precision if the symmetry is broken On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, LizR wrote: > Or even a "broken" symmetry. > > -- > 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: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
Or even a "broken" symmetry. -- 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: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
To a second approximation, the afore-mentioned cancellation can be made very exact by giving each particle a partner which exactly balances its contribution (or words to that effect). These are the "superpartners", and give a fermion for each known boson and vice versa. Since fermions and bosons have opposite effects in renormalisation, these could be made to cancel out exactly if these were identical apart from their spins. But since these superpartners haven't been observed they must have a greater mass than their mundane partners, this being a broke symmetry. However they can still cancel to high precision... ...unless I am still barking up the wrong branch of the Feynman diagram, 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.
Re: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
To a first approximation this appears to have something to do with the relative weakness of gravity compared to the weak force. This is, I gather, highly unexpected because it involves some delicate cancellations (presumably delicate to about 32 decimal places). And I also gather this is connected with renormalisation, which (if I remember correctly) involves cancelling out infinities that might arise from, for example, point charges (see "Tronnies" for more on this subject :-) by shielding them with virtual particles. The amount of shielding that can be produced depends on which particles are available to virtualise out of the vacuum, so supersymmetry (for example) provides a lot of extra particles which I assume can contribute to a much larger amount of cancellation than would otherwise be possible... ...or am I barking up the wrong space-time foliation? -- 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: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
Thanks! I will perhaps have more to say / ask once I've looked at those. -- 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: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of these things will comment, but I believe it has to do with what physicists call the "hierarchy problem", here are some links for your perusal: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/ http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/some-speculative-theoretical-ideas-for-the-lhc/supersymmetry/supersymmetry-what-is-it/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/15/the-rise-and-fall-of-supersymmetry/ http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/07/01/the-hierarchy-problem-why-the-higgs-has-a-snowballs-chance-in-hell/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem And I don't think the physicists are really saying that 115 GeV Higgs would rule out any sort of multiverse or need for anthropic arguments to explain various constants of nature, just that it would allow for a non-anthropic, supersymmetery-based explanation for *this particular* "lucky" (for life) value of the Higgs mass, that is neither zero nor near the Planck scale. Jesse On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:38 PM, LizR wrote: > We've just been watching "Particle Fever" - a documentary about the LHC > (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least > a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV > Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) > would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The > measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. > > They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that > the MV answer would effectively be "the end of physics", I assume because > the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible > at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable > experiment. > > I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it > seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio > of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, > I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton > is a composite "particle" a better example might be the ratio of the > electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. > > When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that > there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There > were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to > be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of > hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or > whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer > (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to > realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the > observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it > seems to me, don't. > > And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the > Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one > handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry > breakings > > This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, > and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge > from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 > dimensions. > > What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry > to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the > film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. > > Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? > > -- > 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: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
Also 10^500 is the number of unique windings thru 500 topo holes each winding having 10 quantum states, but in 6 dimensions, not 11. I also do not understand why SUSY would rule out MW. Richard On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR wrote: > Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? > > > > On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR wrote: > >> We've just been watching "Particle Fever" - a documentary about the LHC >> (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least >> a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV >> Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) >> would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The >> measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. >> >> They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that >> the MV answer would effectively be "the end of physics", I assume because >> the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible >> at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable >> experiment. >> >> I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it >> seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio >> of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, >> I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton >> is a composite "particle" a better example might be the ratio of the >> electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. >> >> When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that >> there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There >> were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to >> be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of >> hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or >> whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer >> (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to >> realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the >> observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it >> seems to me, don't. >> >> And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the >> Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one >> handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry >> breakings >> >> This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, >> and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge >> from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 >> dimensions. >> >> What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry >> to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the >> film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. >> >> Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? >> >> > -- > 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: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
My only comment is that SUSY is associated with string theory, not MW. String theory includes QFT as a low energy equivalent w/o SUSY and QFT does not predict MW. But then I am just another dummie. Richard On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR wrote: > Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? > > > > On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR wrote: > >> We've just been watching "Particle Fever" - a documentary about the LHC >> (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least >> a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV >> Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) >> would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The >> measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. >> >> They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that >> the MV answer would effectively be "the end of physics", I assume because >> the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible >> at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable >> experiment. >> >> I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it >> seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio >> of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, >> I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton >> is a composite "particle" a better example might be the ratio of the >> electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. >> >> When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that >> there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There >> were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to >> be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of >> hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or >> whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer >> (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to >> realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the >> observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it >> seems to me, don't. >> >> And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the >> Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one >> handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry >> breakings >> >> This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, >> and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge >> from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 >> dimensions. >> >> What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry >> to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the >> film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. >> >> Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? >> >> > -- > 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: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR wrote: > We've just been watching "Particle Fever" - a documentary about the LHC > (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least > a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV > Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) > would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The > measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. > > They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that > the MV answer would effectively be "the end of physics", I assume because > the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible > at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable > experiment. > > I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it > seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio > of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, > I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton > is a composite "particle" a better example might be the ratio of the > electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. > > When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that > there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There > were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to > be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of > hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or > whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer > (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to > realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the > observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it > seems to me, don't. > > And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the > Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one > handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry > breakings > > This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, > and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge > from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 > dimensions. > > What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry > to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the > film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. > > Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? > > -- 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
Have you taken it interstate yet, over 500 miles, summer vacation movie style yet? It will easily run at 85mph on the freeway with some speed in reserve. It doesn't acclerate as well as my VW Passat 1.8T did, but it's adequate. Maintenance - dunno; hasn't needed any yet. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 9:43 pm Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On 7/15/2014 2:40 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: sounds interesting-how is performance/maintenance? Cars can be transitioned to electric power pretty easily. I just bought a Chevy Volt and over the first thousand miles we've burned less than 7gal of gas. It will easily run at 85mph on the freeway with some speed in reserve. It doesn't acclerate as well as my VW Passat 1.8T did, but it's adequate. Maintenance - dunno; hasn't needed any yet. 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: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 16:32, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Jul 2014, at 03:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God
"hallucination", there are technic for that (fasting, sleep
deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences,
etc.).
Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of
arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture
is among them? Great.
Of course you have a point: 1p unprovable arithmetic truth can be
bogus and tacky at times,
Arithmetical truth are true, by definition.
I was referring to possible 1st person experience, and if my memory
serves me, not all of Ramanujan's visions were proven true.
OK. When false, it is no more in arithmetical truth.
You are right. Amazingly, some crazy formula by Ramanujan are were
false. Some remains unproved and unrefuted, and many have been proved,
some with Ramanujan help.
Of course his success rate is tremendous (interesting question in
itself, this number...) and his presence on our historical map
should represent a firm argument for searching altered states and
greater liberality and humility facing others' pursuit of personal
theology, whoever the gods.
Agreed.
Whenever I read posts condemning "some religious practice as
obviously ridiculous vs. the paradigms that I hold dear" and the
smart huffing, puffing, and flattery between similar position, I
just shrug and think that this just shows falling into quite obvious
trap.
Yes. In the same spirit I usually answer only post where I find a
disagreement, unless the fact that I do agree can add something (in
case people have some reason to think I will disagree for example).
Now I certainly do condemn some religious practice, like some form of
African mutilation done on some woman, and deprived them for a normal
sexual life. I condemn all religious practice leading to violence or
hurting people.
But that is a bit like I condemn the use of hard drugs for the pilot
of planes. It is common sense.
There are also non refutable falsities, and Eric solved the problem
I gave him, to prove that [PA + some consistent but false
proposition in arithmetic] can augment the ability of PA to prove
some true arithmetic statement, which explains why even "evolution",
not just the government, can lie.
Nice, but not the best news somehow... consistent but false.
Yes. the most typical example is "PA is inconsistent". This is
typically false, but PA cannot refute it, as PA cannot prove
"[]f ->f" (""I am inconsistent" leads to false"; PA would then prove
its own consistency, contradicting Gödel second I. theorem).
So we can congratulate politician for upholding prohibition because
it's only "education"?
May be we need to that kind of error to just learn that it is
erroneous, but I doubt so.
I just said that inconsistency might be needed to prove "true"
theorem, but it is not clear if we have to go through this.
What happens is that we can expect some lies from nature, like when
spider makes bird believing they are ants.
But this is what Platonist expect, as they are willing to believe that
we are most of the type lied about the appearances.
Also is Eric's work you refer to on your site or online? PGC
No, alas. And Eric was used to explain things on tram tickets) or
toilet paper, or anything in place of a diary or computer memory. But
I should have it in some of my own diary. I will look for it.
Bruno
--
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.
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: Atheist
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 20 Jul 2014, at 03:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God >> "hallucination", there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, >> magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). >> >> >> Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? >> I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? >> Great. >> > > Of course you have a point: 1p unprovable arithmetic truth can be bogus > and tacky at times, > > > Arithmetical truth are true, by definition. > I was referring to possible 1st person experience, and if my memory serves me, not all of Ramanujan's visions were proven true. Of course his success rate is tremendous (interesting question in itself, this number...) and his presence on our historical map should represent a firm argument for searching altered states and greater liberality and humility facing others' pursuit of personal theology, whoever the gods. Whenever I read posts condemning "some religious practice as obviously ridiculous vs. the paradigms that I hold dear" and the smart huffing, puffing, and flattery between similar position, I just shrug and think that this just shows falling into quite obvious trap. > There are also non refutable falsities, and Eric solved the problem I gave > him, to prove that [PA + some consistent but false proposition in > arithmetic] can augment the ability of PA to prove some true arithmetic > statement, which explains why even "evolution", not just the government, > can lie. > Nice, but not the best news somehow... consistent but false. So we can congratulate politician for upholding prohibition because it's only "education"? Also is Eric's work you refer to on your site or online? PGC -- 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: Chalmers and Consciousness
On 20 Jul 2014, at 15:58, David Nyman wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uhRhtFFhNzQ This is a TED video of David Chalmers on the Hard Problem. His basic ideas will be pretty well known to most of us on this list although interestingly, he now seems less equivocal about panpsychism than in The Conscious Mind. He talks about the need for "crazy ideas" to tackle the Hard Problem. In this regard, he mentions Daniel Dennett's functionalism-is-everything and his his own formulation of information + panpsychism as examples of such crazy theories. However, IMHO these ideas simply aren't crazy enough to confront the Hardest part of the problem. Both seem blind to the crucial need to reconcile the 1p and 3p accounts, albeit they ignore it in opposite ways. Dennett's position is essentially to eliminate the 1p part, whereas panpsychism (with or without "information") just seems incoherent on the reconciliation. Chalmers seems to consider the outstanding problem in the latter case to be "structural mismatch" (i.e. physical things don't appear to be structured like mental things). He proposes that this might be solved by invoking "informational structure" as encoded in physical systems. However, ISTM that the really Hard problem (at least a priori) is not structural, but referential. Good point. IOW, how can phenomena that are (putatively) the mutual referents of the mind and the brain be shown, in some rigorous sense, to be equivalent, always assuming that one or the other isn't tacitly eliminated from the explanation? Indeed, if one accepts physics as a self-sufficient level of explanation, what purely 3p justification, or need, is there for claiming that a physical system "refers" at all, as distinct from what is already explained in terms of physical interaction? This is well captured by the Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement (POPJ). The POPJ asks: With reference to what theory (specifically and in detail) is it possible to reconcile the claim that utterances "about" mental phenomena are exhaustively reducible to purely physical processes, with the parallel claim that such utterances refer to 1p phenomena that are not so reducible? Comp, of course, purports to have the theoretical resources to justify such a reconciliation. I think so, once we understand that comp eliminates Aristotle primary matter. Few does, but then most still ignore the FPI. Bruno Any other contenders? David -- 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. 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.
Chalmers and Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uhRhtFFhNzQ This is a TED video of David Chalmers on the Hard Problem. His basic ideas will be pretty well known to most of us on this list although interestingly, he now seems less equivocal about panpsychism than in The Conscious Mind. He talks about the need for "crazy ideas" to tackle the Hard Problem. In this regard, he mentions Daniel Dennett's functionalism-is-everything and his his own formulation of information + panpsychism as examples of such crazy theories. However, IMHO these ideas simply aren't crazy enough to confront the Hardest part of the problem. Both seem blind to the crucial need to *reconcile* the 1p and 3p accounts, albeit they ignore it in opposite ways. Dennett's position is essentially to eliminate the 1p part, whereas panpsychism (with or without "information") just seems incoherent on the reconciliation. Chalmers seems to consider the outstanding problem in the latter case to be "structural mismatch" (i.e. physical things don't appear to be structured like mental things). He proposes that this might be solved by invoking "informational structure" as encoded in physical systems. However, ISTM that the really Hard problem (at least a priori) is not structural, but referential. IOW, how can phenomena that are (putatively) the mutual *referents* of the mind and the brain be shown, in some rigorous sense, to be equivalent, always assuming that one or the other isn't tacitly eliminated from the explanation? Indeed, if one accepts physics as a self-sufficient level of explanation, what purely 3p justification, or need, is there for claiming that a physical system "refers" at all, as distinct from what is already explained in terms of physical interaction? This is well captured by the Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement (POPJ). The POPJ asks: With reference to what theory (specifically and in detail) is it possible to reconcile the claim that utterances "about" mental phenomena are exhaustively reducible to purely physical processes, with the parallel claim that such utterances refer to 1p phenomena that are not so reducible? Comp, of course, purports to have the theoretical resources to justify such a reconciliation. Any other contenders? David -- 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: It Knows That It Knows
Have you read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? Great book! Even if they are impossible to verify in detail, Jaynes's ideas are a terrific stimulus to thinking about both the function and the origin of consciousness (in the 3p sense). By the way, I once used TOOCITBOTBM in a game of charades. They got it! David On 20 Jul 2014 13:46, "meekerdb" wrote: > On 7/19/2014 11:37 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > >> On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: >>> >>> It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely >>> that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one >>> amongst many linguistic concepts). >>> >> I don't grok this thing of the self 'evolving' like brains and thumbs. We >> surely didn't create the concept of the self. The self did not evolve. It >> switched ON. It awoke. There was a moment. It was a moment in history. Kind >> of like the ape and the bone in Kubrick's '2001'. >> > > > You seem to know a lot about it. Have you read Julian Jaynes "The Origin > of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? > > Brent > >> >> It may be that some substance consumed altered consciousness. From that >> moment forward, there was a signal difference. The possibility of suffering >> being a very large one. I don't think, along with Russell Standish, that >> ants are conscious, for example - but individuals may share in a group >> 'self'. Selfhood is independent of minds or of contents of minds or the >> precision or mental acuity (perception) of minds. It appears to be the kind >> of knowledge of something that cannot be demonstrated in any 3p way. >> >> K >> >> > -- > 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: It Knows That It Knows
On 20 Jul 2014, at 08:37, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one amongst many linguistic concepts). I don't grok this thing of the self 'evolving' like brains and thumbs. We surely didn't create the concept of the self. The self did not evolve. It switched ON. It awoke. There was a moment. It was a moment in history. Kind of like the ape and the bone in Kubrick's '2001'. It may be that some substance consumed altered consciousness. From that moment forward, there was a signal difference. The possibility of suffering being a very large one. I don't think, along with Russell Standish, that ants are conscious, for example - but individuals may share in a group 'self'. Selfhood is independent of minds or of contents of minds or the precision or mental acuity (perception) of minds. It appears to be the kind of knowledge of something that cannot be demonstrated in any 3p way. I think that ants are conscious, but probably not self-conscious. That comes with the spider, cuttlefishes, ... perhaps. Bruno K -- 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. 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: It Knows That It Knows
On 20 Jul 2014, at 08:13, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:57 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 7/19/2014 10:38 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:11 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones > wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.) Are there any others? Well, do you know that you know that you know? Even if the answer is yes after just a few more iteration the answer will certainly be no because you won't be able to follow even what the question means. And as a practical matter at least 99% of the time you don't know that you know, you just know. Most of the time it would be counterproductive anyway, if you were fully aware of how you know that you know how to walk and chew gum at the same time you'd fall flat on your face. John K Clark OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants who apparently also 'know that they know'? You aren't allowed to respond "Intelligence" because intelligence is what makes introspection possible in the first place. Without self-awareness there is no self to inspect. You can can question many things about the content of your consciousness. A cat can't. There needs to be a 'knower', a 'self' or a 'subject'. Who or what is that? What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? The language part. Brent Let us not overlook those nifty opposable thumbs that made us superior tool makers. Chris How do language and/or opposable thumbs construct an experiencing subject? Clearly the subject precedes the existence of these things. No it's not clear at all. Where does the self come from? What is it? A self constructs language and sees the value of opposable thumbs. The self is primary. Of course even without language animals have a self concept. They know where they are, how they feel. But that doesn't mean they have the introspective ability to say "I know." Once they have language they can articulate that some people "know how", e.g. their parents know how to find food. With language they can put "I" and "know" together. It's not that different than mathematicians putting Peano's axioms and rules of inference together and "knowing arithmetic". Brent So are we happy with a definition of self as arising from language? Where does language arise from? Language has this magical ability to construct itself as well as the subject that experiences it? It seems to me that arithmetic (computer science) explains well both - where the 3p self comes from (second recursion theorem, D'x' = 'xx', etc.) - where the 1p self comes from (through the machine's discovery that she is not her 3p self). Theaetetus saw the possibility of his, but Socrates refute him (and the "modern have followed him), because they confuse the modal box of knowledge with a 3p representation. That is provably wrong for machines, but I agree the point is subtle. Bruno K -- 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- l...@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. 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: It Knows That It Knows
On 20 Jul 2014, at 07:57, meekerdb wrote: On 7/19/2014 10:38 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:11 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.) Are there any others? Well, do you know that you know that you know? Even if the answer is yes after just a few more iteration the answer will certainly be no because you won't be able to follow even what the question means. And as a practical matter at least 99% of the time you don't know that you know, you just know. Most of the time it would be counterproductive anyway, if you were fully aware of how you know that you know how to walk and chew gum at the same time you'd fall flat on your face. John K Clark OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants who apparently also 'know that they know'? You aren't allowed to respond "Intelligence" because intelligence is what makes introspection possible in the first place. Without self-awareness there is no self to inspect. You can can question many things about the content of your consciousness. A cat can't. There needs to be a 'knower', a 'self' or a 'subject'. Who or what is that? What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? The language part. Brent Let us not overlook those nifty opposable thumbs that made us superior tool makers. Chris How do language and/or opposable thumbs construct an experiencing subject? Clearly the subject precedes the existence of these things. No it's not clear at all. Where does the self come from? What is it? A self constructs language and sees the value of opposable thumbs. The self is primary. Of course even without language animals have a self concept. They know where they are, how they feel. But that doesn't mean they have the introspective ability to say "I know." Once they have language they can articulate that some people "know how", e.g. their parents know how to find food. With language they can put "I" and "know" together. It's not that different than mathematicians putting Peano's axioms and rules of inference together and "knowing arithmetic". Colloquially only. In science we never know as such. It is only belief, theory, assumptions, etc. Bruno 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. 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: It Knows That It Knows
On 7/19/2014 11:37 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one amongst many linguistic concepts). I don't grok this thing of the self 'evolving' like brains and thumbs. We surely didn't create the concept of the self. The self did not evolve. It switched ON. It awoke. There was a moment. It was a moment in history. Kind of like the ape and the bone in Kubrick's '2001'. You seem to know a lot about it. Have you read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? Brent It may be that some substance consumed altered consciousness. From that moment forward, there was a signal difference. The possibility of suffering being a very large one. I don't think, along with Russell Standish, that ants are conscious, for example - but individuals may share in a group 'self'. Selfhood is independent of minds or of contents of minds or the precision or mental acuity (perception) of minds. It appears to be the kind of knowledge of something that cannot be demonstrated in any 3p way. K -- 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: It Knows That It Knows
On 20 Jul 2014, at 06:48, meekerdb wrote: On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.) Are there any others? Well, do you know that you know that you know? Even if the answer is yes after just a few more iteration the answer will certainly be no because you won't be able to follow even what the question means. And as a practical matter at least 99% of the time you don't know that you know, you just know. Most of the time it would be counterproductive anyway, if you were fully aware of how you know that you know how to walk and chew gum at the same time you'd fall flat on your face. John K Clark OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants who apparently also 'know that they know'? You aren't allowed to respond "Intelligence" because intelligence is what makes introspection possible in the first place. Without self-awareness there is no self to inspect. You can can question many things about the content of your consciousness. A cat can't. There needs to be a 'knower', a 'self' or a 'subject'. Who or what is that? What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? The language part. The language part can only say "I believe". That might be handled by the left brain. The right brain of the cat might handle the more delicate connection with truth, which is not representational, at least in the classical theory of knowledge when applied to machine. A correct machine will never say "I know", except in intimate relationships, as a colloquial way to express itself. Bruno 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. 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: It Knows That It Knows
On 20 Jul 2014, at 05:26, Kim Jones wrote: A good thinking habit to cultivate is simplicity. Try and make it as simple as you can. Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.) I agree that you are very close. But this is not without difficulty. In comp, if you use I know, it automatically means "I believe". The 1p has really no name, and can't even say "I know", and that is part of the non assertability of consciousness. Slightly more correct, but still misleading, would be 1. I believe 2. I know that I believe. The second "I know" is still not valid, but the machine has more abilities to point on it. You could have said, for correct machine: 1. She knows 2. She knows that she knows. Then that can be made correct, assuming a machine more simple than you. But it is no more clearly addressing consciousness. Normal, as we can't do that, if we are correct machine. To name consciousness is almost as much a blaspheme than naming God, in comp. Are there any others? Am I correct in assuming the comp substitution level is where consciousness reaches 2? I would say yes, and is coherent with the fact that you need to bet on the substitution level, you can believe in it, and thus know it in the Theaetus' weak sense, but you can't know it in the sense of being sure of it (even in the case you already survived, in which case you can feel to be sure, but can still doubt intellectually). In fact you have to be at 2 to even be able to say you are at 1. Yes. It is the main difference between RA and PA. RA satisfies 1. But not 2. PA satisfies both 1 and 2. It is the difference between being just universal, and being universal and knowing it (Löbian). This second level of experience appears to be what defines self- aware consciousness. It is the 'I' who knows, (supposedly) consistently the same as the 'I' that "I" know and vice versa. Consciousness is therefore more than the contents of consciousness. Where does this magical ability of matter to organise its own self- organising information system come from? How does the machine construct its own operating system? All the self-organization occurs by the richness of the laws of addition and multiplication in the number realm. brains and other molecular societies are only lawful stable appearances. Keep in mind that numbers and machines excel in self-reference, both the 3p and 1p one, and so all that occurs in UD* or in simple arithmetic. Bruno Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain -- 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. 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: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 05:26, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List > wrote: > I would describe it as a societal paradigm... this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. Yes, but why does religion and only religion get this special treatment? Nobody thinks that all political ideas deserve respect, or economic ideas or scientific ideas or artistic ideas; some ideas deserve contempt, UNLESS it's a religious idea, and then you're supposed to respect it no matter how imbecilic or evil it is. My question is why. Because we have separated science from theology, or theology from science, which is a way to give a right for the absence of rigor in the human affairs, and that idea is loved by all those who want to use authoritarian powers to control others. We are encouraged to respect the bullshit of others to better swallow our own bullshit. I agree with you, that is very sad. Unfortunately, atheism, the strong form that you seem to defend, is de facto an ally of the religious bullshit, by mocking systematically the attempts of being serious in theology. very often, the atheists are the one pleading for the respect of religion. They don't see that they make apology of dogma, sometimes their own, in the process. Bruno 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. 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: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 03:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God "hallucination", there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? Great. Of course you have a point: 1p unprovable arithmetic truth can be bogus and tacky at times, Arithmetical truth are true, by definition. There are also non refutable falsities, and Eric solved the problem I gave him, to prove that [PA + some consistent but false proposition in arithmetic] can augment the ability of PA to prove some true arithmetic statement, which explains why even "evolution", not just the government, can lie. Bruno which is assumed in the notion... but also nice at other times, like songs, good jokes, steering some fast vehicle or bike etc. PGC 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. 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: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 02:21, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God "hallucination", there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? Not to see them as true, but to conceive them as possibly true, and thus more consistent than you might have thought. I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? There are few chances, unless you met Ramanujan's goddess, Namagiri, who seem able to leak some of that kind of terrestrial information, according to Ramanujan (and actually some others). I guess you were just joking. Bruno Great. 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. 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: Atheist
On 19 Jul 2014, at 22:08, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Well sure... life is more pleasant when people have a live and let live attitude. As you point out respect needs mutuality. Respecting an institution that does not respect anyone that does not adopt their dogma is a one way flow of respect that leads to a distorted situation. Religion - for the most part - does not respect anything that is not in accordance with its dogma, therefore it should not "expect" to be respected. No machine can't respect a religious dogmatic institution and stay self-referentially correct. But that comes from its own religion, and I don't see why I should not respect that. I think it is better to avoid a confusion between religion and dogmatic religion (which is the case for most conevntioanl institutionalized religions, for obvious political and non-religious reasons). >>You mean institutionalized religion, I guess. I prefer to distinguish "religion", which concerns the realtion between machine and transcendent truth, and their local contingent institutionalization, which in the comp religion are provably necessarily betraying religion. It is a theorem of sort: religion (if comp is true) is just not institutionalizable, at least in the sense of asserting truth/false, or good/evil, etc. people can met and dance and do many religious things if they want to, but it is more like singing, dancing, taking drugs, or whatever. It is not normative neither in the beliefs, nor in the actions. The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, which becomes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast. For me this implies a re-binding of many into a single organized - allegedly correct -- belief system. A mystic interpretation of the word "religo" is also possible, with the re-binding root of the word pointing to the re- binding of the disconnected soul to some larger meta-soul. The word resonates with me when taken in the second sense of the meaning... in the first sense of re-binding many into a single faith I find it abhorrent. So we are quite close on this. The organized practice of religion based on following the interpretation of some dead dogma is the antithesis of the enlivening act of experiencing living spiritual existence. That is why those defending dogma will forbid personal research, and condemn the mystics, and worse, recuperate and deforms their message after they died. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being "negative theologies". But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation. I agree all human institutions become captured eventually by small classes of people who rig the system - any system -- to favor their own. Once the cockroaches manage to worm their way into power within any institution it is almost impossible to rid the institution of their influence. OK. religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). When a religion is institutionalized at the level of the state; not only politics will get inconsistent and authorianists, but the religion itself will become a mockery of itself. Also, at such a level (an Empire), it can take *many* centuries to recover. All insitutions become means for enforcing an uneven playing field for the benefit of a favored elite class. >>Yes, but some institutions are needed, like academies, gov
Re: It Knows That It Knows
On 20 July 2014 18:37, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: > > > > It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely > that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one > amongst many linguistic concepts). > > I don't grok this thing of the self 'evolving' like brains and thumbs. We > surely didn't create the concept of the self. The self did not evolve. It > switched ON. It awoke. There was a moment. It was a moment in history. Kind > of like the ape and the bone in Kubrick's '2001'. > This is possible (though I don't see how it's testable). However I'm not sure that we definitely "didn't create the concept of the self". It may be possible to have a self without having a concept of it - without having concepts at all, perhaps. That would depend on what the self is. If it's a linguistic construct then it's basically the same as the concept of the self, in which case perhaps we did invent it. If it's something else, then it may have appeared - turned on, emerged or evolved - but we may still have invented the *concept*. Before we did so there would be no concept of the self, just the self itself. -- 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: It Knows That It Knows
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:44 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 20 Jul 2014, at 5:22 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" wrote: Are you suggesting that language, or our superb mastery of tool-making had little or no effect on how our own human “self” evolved? Chris Not on how it evolved after it switched on, no. I am saying that a self needed to exist in some sense initially for language and tool-making to be possible. The self does not evolve. The self is what makes observes evolution. Knowledge evolves. Consciousness expands (perhaps). The self simply is. It is outside the space in which these things you speak of evolve. I see no evidence that the self cannot evolve. That “self is not itself emergent. To say that self simply is veers off into mysticism. It is not offering an explanation for how the self appears on the scene. I see nothing magical at all about the self and prefer not to romanticize it. I am – like you – curious about its nature etc. and feel the best way to make headway in understanding this is to both do a comparative study of all the various kinds of self-aware species and the mind/brain functioning that clearly underlies the self – in each of these species. Until we have much better understanding of brain/mind functioning at the dynamic level of the networked neurons chatter all we have is conjecture and hypothesis; it is premature to speak of anything in this area of knowledge with the language of the definitive. I can say clearly we will see the sun tomorrow – though clearly that is incorrect J -- but can we clearly state anything about our “self”? Chris K -- 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: It Knows That It Knows
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows > On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: > > It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one amongst many linguistic concepts). >>I don't grok this thing of the self 'evolving' like brains and thumbs. We surely didn't create the concept of the self. The self did not evolve. It switched ON. We do not know enough about the self to make definitive statements about its nature. First off one needs to take a census of the species that have self-awareness. If we want to speak of "self" it behooves us to look around at other species that we can agree -- based on evidence -- experience some kind of "self". I doubt that a crow's sense of self is like our own, but I have no doubt that these complex smart social creatures experience self-awareness (they pass the mirror test). An Orca is a self-aware culture making animal and quite clearly also unlike either a Crow or a Hominid. The point I am belaboring here is that even just on our planet there seems to be at least a few other self-aware species imbued with a sense of self... that is aware and can make abstract plans. Why are you so sure that "self" just switches on like that. Do say Gibbons have no self? Or even dogs and cats -- who are not able to pass the mirror test -- have they therefore zero self? Even simple animals exhibit individual personality, is not this evidence of a nascent proto-self. Why can't "self" evolve? Why does it have to suddenly explode onto the scene where an instant before there was nothing at all. >> It awoke. There was a moment. It was a moment in history. Kind of like the ape and the bone in Kubrick's '2001'. Beautiful seminal film by the way... when you say awoke, isn't that another way of saying it emerged? It may be that some substance consumed altered consciousness. From that moment forward, there was a signal difference. The possibility of suffering being a very large one. >> I don't think, along with Russell Standish, that ants are conscious, for example - but individuals may share in a group 'self'. Social insects however have incredibly complex lives when one looks at the entire hive. Ant cultures have been studied and have revealed a surprisingly complex and very strategic shifting of alliances and kinds of relationships (from outright enslavement, to tribute-paying relationships, to alliances between neighboring ant colonies and species.) Termite mounds, ant colonies, hives are all admirable self-healing adaptive organisms (always changing, which can be seen by looking at time lapsed photos). Are you sure there can be no meta-self-awareness operating at some hive level. I was surprised by the apparent complexity of social insect interactions -- both within a colony and at the colony to colony level. Perhaps this is all just algorithmic and genetically programmed behavior, but social insects are quite adaptive and exhibit both strategic and tactical behaviors that are intriguing. >>Selfhood is independent of minds or of contents of minds or the precision or mental acuity (perception) of minds. It appears to be the kind of knowledge of something that cannot be demonstrated in any 3p way. Why are you so certain that selfhood is independent of minds. It seems rather more likely to me that selfhood emerges within minds of sufficient complexity and that there is no hard line between having consciousness and having none at all. Chris K -- 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: It Knows That It Knows
> On 20 Jul 2014, at 5:22 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" > wrote: > > Are you suggesting that language, or our superb mastery of tool-making had > little or no effect on how our own human “self” evolved? > > Chris > Not on how it evolved after it switched on, no. I am saying that a self needed to exist in some sense initially for language and tool-making to be possible. The self does not evolve. The self is what makes observes evolution. Knowledge evolves. Consciousness expands (perhaps). The self simply is. It is outside the space in which these things you speak of evolve. K -- 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: It Knows That It Knows
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:48 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 10:11 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.) Are there any others? Well, do you know that you know that you know? Even if the answer is yes after just a few more iteration the answer will certainly be no because you won't be able to follow even what the question means. And as a practical matter at least 99% of the time you don't know that you know, you just know. Most of the time it would be counterproductive anyway, if you were fully aware of how you know that you know how to walk and chew gum at the same time you'd fall flat on your face. John K Clark OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants who apparently also 'know that they know'? You aren't allowed to respond "Intelligence" because intelligence is what makes introspection possible in the first place. Without self-awareness there is no self to inspect. You can can question many things about the content of your consciousness. A cat can't. There needs to be a 'knower', a 'self' or a 'subject'. Who or what is that? What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? The language part. Brent Let us not overlook those nifty opposable thumbs that made us superior tool makers. You can say, "Gimme a ride." but you can't say "I know." with your thumb. :-) Sure. but by the same token you can say "hunt", but that does not provide you with a Clovis point Chris 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: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 7/19/2014 10:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:27 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: > I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all > should respect religion. Yes, but why does religion and only religion get this special treatment? Nobody thinks that all political ideas deserve respect, or economic ideas or scientific ideas or artistic ideas; some ideas deserve contempt, UNLESS it's a religious idea, and then you're supposed to respect it no matter how imbecilic or evil it is. My question is why. John K Clark Perhaps because most people are mortally afraid of facing the inevitability of their own personal death experience. This primal visceral fear is – for most – offloaded and “answered”, re-packaged and served up as religion. Perhaps the unspoken rule that religion be respected might be driven by this very widespread and common dread of actually facing the true core motive force that gives rise to the need to come up with a religion in the first place. Maybe it is not respect, but dread fear masquerading as respect. Riffing here – have no research to back this speculative thought up with. As Kurt Vonnegut has one of his characters say, "If you don't 'truth' me, I won't 'truth' you." Nice quote…. Kurt Vonnegut sure nailed that on the head J Chris 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: It Knows That It Knows
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:38 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:11 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.) Are there any others? Well, do you know that you know that you know? Even if the answer is yes after just a few more iteration the answer will certainly be no because you won't be able to follow even what the question means. And as a practical matter at least 99% of the time you don't know that you know, you just know. Most of the time it would be counterproductive anyway, if you were fully aware of how you know that you know how to walk and chew gum at the same time you'd fall flat on your face. John K Clark OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants who apparently also 'know that they know'? You aren't allowed to respond "Intelligence" because intelligence is what makes introspection possible in the first place. Without self-awareness there is no self to inspect. You can can question many things about the content of your consciousness. A cat can't. There needs to be a 'knower', a 'self' or a 'subject'. Who or what is that? What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? The language part. Brent Let us not overlook those nifty opposable thumbs that made us superior tool makers. Chris How do language and/or opposable thumbs construct an experiencing subject? I believe the question you posed was what separates us from other self-aware species – such as elephants, other great apes, toothed whales. In order to be a tool maker or linguist one presupposes that the species in question is already sufficiently intelligent for self-awareness to have emerged within their massively parallel networked neuronal sheet. The subject – i.e. the early hominid would already have been self-aware to the level at least of modern apes, and for language abilities to evolve I would suppose a definite notch above. Clearly the subject precedes the existence of these things. Where does the self come from? Why clearly? Could not the self – the self-aware observer -- naturally emerge, given a system with enough parallelism (redundancy) and complexity. Elephants have “selves” too… so do Dolphins and Crows. Where did their “selves” come from? And a fair number of species appear to use tools (including octopi) it Is not uniquely human. >>What is it? The self is an emergent phenomena within the meta-reality of our highly folded neural sheets (and as an aside, it seems glial cells play a vital role as well) A self constructs language and sees the value of opposable thumbs. The self is primary. Of course… speaking for myself was not suggesting otherwise. However the self is emergent it can only exist in a mind of sufficient complexity; it is not primary. Our sense of self evolved along with our evolving linguistic abilities. I do not think we can even really separate our own human sense of self from our linguistic self. We speak our own selves to ourselves; language is bound up into every thought we conjure (or believe we are conjuring) from the mist of the moment before we thought. Even thoughts of a non-verbal nature are most often packaged up in our own minds with language. Are you suggesting that language, or our superb mastery of tool-making had little or no effect on how our own human “self” evolved? Chris K -- 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.googl
