Re: Life in the Islamic State for women
John, please see my answers below your questions. On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:08 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya, please allow me one (two?) little questions: -- How can you tell a 'real' interpreter of God's words from a pretender? -- and I do not only refer to the 'publication' of the entire Script, there may be VAST differences between practical interpretations of the rightfully published details, whatever is included in the authentic total. (Look at e.g. the political variations as 'religious' prescriptions, law systems, state-formats, stuff to learn about the world etc.) A real messenger/prophet/interpreter does not ask for any personal benefit or remuneration. The pretenders seek worldly benefits. Following are quotes from the preachings of some messengers: Quoting Messenger Noah: http://quran.com/26/109 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Hud: http://quran.com/26/127 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Saleh: http://quran.com/26/145 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Lot: http://quran.com/26/164 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Shu'ayb: http://quran.com/26/180 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. --Is there a reson to call HIM and not HER? 1) We believe that God is above gender, but since God is referred to in the Quran with the masculine pronouns, so we follow the Quran's preference of pronouns for God. 2) Though http://quran.com/4/1 states that we should revere the wombs, but it clarifies in other places that worship is only for the ONLY God and that the worship of female deities Satan-worship http://quran.com/4/117 . http://quran.com/4/1 Sahih International O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer. http://quran.com/4/116-120 Sahih International Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly gone far astray. They call upon instead of Him none but female [deities], and they [actually] call upon none but a rebellious Satan. Whom Allah has cursed. For he had said, I will surely take from among Your servants a specific portion. And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah . And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss. Satan promises them and arouses desire in them. But Satan does not promise them except delusion. As I learned (from you), there is no gender differentiation in Heavens, what I found VERY emlightening. Note: The Quran uses the term Heaven(s) [sama; pl:samawat] for sky/space/cosmos. For the Hereafter, though the Heaven(s) and Earth will be recreated, the term for the place of reward is Garden(s) [jannat], and the term for the place of punishment is Fire [naar]. I speculate, but I do not know if there will or will not be any gender differentiation in the Hereafter. Following is the basis of my speculation: 1) Human male and female pair has been created from a single entity [ http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-first-humans.html ]. http://quran.com/4/1 Sahih International O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer. http://quran.com/6/98 Sahih International And it is He who produced you from one soul and [gave you] a place of dwelling and of storage. We have detailed the signs for a people who understand. http://quran.com/7/189 Sahih International It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate that he might dwell in security with her. And when he covers her, she carries a light burden and continues therein. And when it becomes heavy, they both invoke Allah , their Lord, If You should give us a good [child], we will surely be among the grateful. 2) Verses in the Quran state that, in the Gardens of Eden, the righteous will be reunited (dwell together) with their righteous ascendants, descendants and azwaj ( which can either mean spouses / pairs / kinds). I am more inclined to think it means soulmate. http://quran.com/81/7 Sahih International And when the souls are paired
Re: The MGA revisited
On 8 April 2015 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Seems a lot simpler to have a primary physical universe. Then all you have to do is explore it. If simplicity is the key, then it's a lot simpler to have a Newtonian universe. In fact, it's even simpler to have one with just atoms and the void and four (or is it five?) alchemical elements. The only reason to make things as complicated as necessary, (but no more) is because this gives us extra explanatory power that simpler theories lack. Bruno, for example, is trying to explain the nature of consciousness using a relatively simple and uncontroversial theory, and seeing where it leads. If you *start *from where it leads (the UDA and MGA and so on) then of course it looks complicated. But so does GR, if you start from the final equations ... but GR also starts from a very simple principle, and sees where it leads. -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, *“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”* And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. [image: Americanwings cartoon.jpg] -- 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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:40, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? Have you ever met anyone who doesn't feel like they are travelling through time in a forward direction? Yes, somebody who is one instant away from death . And now that I have answered you question I repeat my question that you dodged: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? many worlds or duplicating machines you have to specify which Telmo Menezes or which you in the exact same way. No it is not exactly the same way. With copying machines John Clark can see 6.02 *10^23 Telmo Menezes running around and has no idea which one is Mr. You, They will all believe to be Telmo, I know, so if just before the multiple duplications John Clark predicted that you will see X how could it be determined which one of the 6.02 *10^23 is Mr. You so we could ask Mr, You if he did really did see X and figure out if John Clark's prediction was correct? but in Many Worlds it is dictated by the laws of physics that John Clark can see only one Telmo Menezes, and human language need not be made more precise than the laws of physics. I don't see how the laws of physics prevent the possibility of another chunk of matter being configured in the exact same way as I am. Obviously the laws of physics don't prevent it, that's why I said that matter duplicating machines don't need new science just very good engineering. But every one of those copies that the machine has made exist in the same universe and are visible to all. But if the Many Worlds interpretation is correct and if the laws of physics are what we think they are then I can never observe any of those other John Clark's or anything else in those other universes. And I think you were being disingenuous, I think you already understood all of this perfectly well. What good does that do? We're in Moscow now and John Clark The Moscow Man didn't write that diary, John Clark The Helsinki Man did and John Clark Helsinki Man no longer exists. Why do you write emails? Because I remember writing them of course just as The M-Man and the W-Man remember being the H-man. what I said is that investigating the specific scenario of duplication to another position is a useful device used by the thought experiment The exact same points could be made if everybody stayed in Helsinki but one copy watched a video about Moscow and the other watched a video about Washington. Information is what turns the Helsinki man into the Moscow Man not a change in position. You may criticize the clarity of the language in the paper. I don't think anyone ever accused Bruno of being unquirky in his English, It has nothing to do with that! The problem is that neither Telmo nor Bruno can get over the lifetime habit of effortlessly using personal pronouns without thinking, not even when the subject is the nature of personal identity; the result being neither realizes that posts on that subject contain nothing but tautologies and circular logic. you are the only one who doesn't understand step 3. A slight correction, I am the only one who understands that there is nothing to understand in step 3. And Telmo, peer pressure is never going to make me think Bruno is right, only logic can do that and I haven't seen much of that around here. The other part that you always leave out is that, if you ask the Helsinki man to predict what he [...] ^^ And we've come full circle and we're right back at square one again. Is Mr. He John Clark or is Mr. He John Clark The Helsinki man? I see only rhetorical trick. Maybe Telmo is waiting your answer to the question asked to you, when you are still in Helsinki, about your prospect of soon drinking a cup of coffee, in the step 3 with the modified protocol where a cup of coffee is offered to the reconstitutions? Assuming computationalism + all the default hypotheses, is the probability 1, 0, or undefined ? 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
Re: The MGA revisited
On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it. The primary physical universe certainly exists, Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a *primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object. There is no scientific evidence for a universal dovetailer either. We don't need evidence here. The existence of the universal dovetailer, and of all its finite pieces of executions is already a theorem of very elementary arithmetic. Those things exist in the same sense that prime number exist. Perhaps you meant its existence in a physical universe. But we don't know if there is a physical universe, and the point, to sum up, is that it will be easier to explain the *appearance* of a physical universe to the entities in arithmetic, than to explain the appearance of arithmetic to physical beings. But the UDA go farer. It shows that if we assume the brain function like a (natural) machine, then we have no choice (unless adding some amount of magic). And so far there is no evidence that it can produce anything like the physical universe we observe. This shows you are still not reading the work with the necessary attention. There are evidences, of different type. I predict the many worlds appearance a long time before reading Everett and understanding that QM gives some evidence for computationalism (for which evidences also exists). Then the math extract a quantum logic exactly where it must appear. Primary physicality is a lot simpler. Occam's razor to the fore Not at all. It assumes a primary physical reality, a mathemaytical reality, some starnge relation between math and physcis, and between mind and physics. The TOE extracted from computationalism assume only elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). The UD works a bit on the first execution, then a bit on the second execution, and then comes back on the first, then the second, then the third, and then come back to the first, etc. In that way, the UD executes all computations, including all those who never stop. Yes, I had misread how that works. But who wrote the programs it executes? Who wrote the scheduler? Let us say God. But with computationalism, God needs only to create the natural numbers, and addition, and multiplication. With physicalism God needs to create a physical universe, the psychological universe, the mathematics, the link between, and the UDA shows you need actual infinities to make the binding. Keep in mind that the goal is to explain where the physical *and* psychological laws come from, and what are their relations. Seems a lot simpler to have a primary physical universe. Then all you have to do is explore it. No problem if that is your goal, but the goal in this list is to figure out what reality can be, and get a deeper understanding how and why all this exists at all, and how consciousness is related to physicalness. The main point is that for a physical universe to exists in some primary form, you have to abandon the idea that a brain is Turing emulable. May be you are not interested in the mind-body problem, but that problem is complex, and with comp, to solve it, there is no choice other than abandoning Aristotle theology (used by anti-theist and most muslim and christians, and some others) and come back to Plato's theology, where the physical emerges, or even is a sort of illusion, from arithmetic through the mind of the universal machine. Universal machine have a crazily interesting platonist theology, which is 99,999% pure mathematics, including physics, and so is testable, and that is the main point. Up to now, the tests confirm it. I am not proposing any new theory. I shows results verified by courageous people who just took the time to study the points with some care. That took years. No one doubt that such results can seem shocking for Aristotelian believers (still a vast majority of scientists and believers), as it extends Everett to arithmetic and eventually forces us to come back to Pythagorus' and Plato's type of conception of reality. But that is the scientific adventure: we cannot put the conceptual problems (like the mind-body) under the rug for ever, and some time we must revised our most fundamental belief. I love as much as you the physical universe, and I find nice that its roots and foundation are purely arithmetical. Matter is no more a primitive, but that makes it even more solid, as you can derive its appearance and stability (hopefully) from elementary arithmetic, which is the thing I doubt the
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:48, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, 7 April 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Apr 2015, at 01:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I agree that if comp is true then consciousness cannot supervene on physical activity, for the reasons in the MGA thread. OK. Thanks for making this clear. The only way out of this conclusion is to deny comp, which means to deny CT. I guess you are too quick. We can still deny comp, without denying CT, for example by pretending that no copy will get the right behavior, or even that the copy will be dead, and cannot be made moving at all, perhaps because we believe in some magical God which would not allow it, or whatever, or that all copies will be mentally impaired, etc. It is only in the case where the copies behave the same as the original, and claim they have no change in qualia, that comp is follows from CT with the no-partial-zombie argument. This does not imply CT is false, as the magical soul, or the primitive matter, or the infinitely low subst level (actually infinite), used to make someone saying no to the doctor, might not add any new computability power, only that it would be needed to remain alive and have the relevant behavior. I guess you agree with this remark, as we were in the context of copies having the right behavior and pretending to survive perfectly. Obviously, a believer in CT, and not in comp, needs some amount of magic, and perhaps we can derive comp from CT, if, like in the MGA, we can show that indeed we need to add something magical. I have to think more on this, as I might be quick again. Hmm... A model could be given with having an infinite low substitution level. When using a digital brain, people would survive ... for some period of time, and then problems would add up, due to truncation error, decimals incorrect, etc. The brain would be a truly infinite machine, but without giving the person new computability power. It seems to me right now. What I intended by CT is the narrower physical version, which says that all physics is computable. OK. This clarifies your point. But the original CT has nothing to do with physics. Also Deutsch's form of CT (everything physical can be quantum Turing emulated (perhaps in polynomial time)) is not equivalent with the original CT, and might be in conflict with it. All physics might be computable, without the entire physical universe being computable (which I thing is figital physics. With computationalism, a priori, the physical should not be computable, but it has to be enough computable to disallow too much white rabbits, something that QM seems to do remarkably well, but it is an open problem with arithmetic. The reason is that the indeterminacy on the computational histories might be too much big. At least the physics in the brain must be Turing emulable, or the whole enterprise falls down. I don't think so. The relevant part of the brain activity, relevant for consciousness to be able to manifest itself, must be Turing emulable, but the brain itself does not. Computationalism presupposes only the existence of a level of description such that we can truncate the (possibly not entirely computable) physical description. Worst: computationalism suggests that the physics (notably of the brain) cannot be exactly Turing emulable. Indeed the physics will be the FPI calculus on, somehow, the infinite unions of all finite pieces of computations going through my relevant state at the substitution level. Today, we have no reason to believe that this will be computable, and worst, that too much white rabbits will not crop up. A brain, or any piece of matter cannot be entirely computable and still have a statistical behavior which is computable, and indeed sometimes Turing universal, like a brain, or a cell. But the real (with comp) physics of some piece of matter can only be a map of the accessible worlds. An electronic orbital is plausibly exactly that. If you look at an electron in an orbital, corresponding to some energy level/eigenvalue, what you see is the map of the set of computation/continuation in which your mind will remain locally invariant when moving to the next worlds. As only the energy level matters in your computation, it does not matter for you if the electron is here or there, and your consciousness/first-person view is in the two (arithmetical) relative reality at once. Physics is one of the way to consider the border between the computable (sigma_1) and the non computable (The pi_1, sigma_2, pi_2, sigma_3, pi_3, sigma_4, pi_4, sigma_5, pi_5, ...part of arithmetic)(*). A priori, the FPI confront the machine's 1p to the full complexity of arithmetic. How to avoid oracles? There
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Thursday, April 9, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:48, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, 7 April 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Apr 2015, at 01:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I agree that if comp is true then consciousness cannot supervene on physical activity, for the reasons in the MGA thread. OK. Thanks for making this clear. The only way out of this conclusion is to deny comp, which means to deny CT. I guess you are too quick. We can still deny comp, without denying CT, for example by pretending that no copy will get the right behavior, or even that the copy will be dead, and cannot be made moving at all, perhaps because we believe in some magical God which would not allow it, or whatever, or that all copies will be mentally impaired, etc. It is only in the case where the copies behave the same as the original, and claim they have no change in qualia, that comp is follows from CT with the no-partial-zombie argument. This does not imply CT is false, as the magical soul, or the primitive matter, or the infinitely low subst level (actually infinite), used to make someone saying no to the doctor, might not add any new computability power, only that it would be needed to remain alive and have the relevant behavior. I guess you agree with this remark, as we were in the context of copies having the right behavior and pretending to survive perfectly. Obviously, a believer in CT, and not in comp, needs some amount of magic, and perhaps we can derive comp from CT, if, like in the MGA, we can show that indeed we need to add something magical. I have to think more on this, as I might be quick again. Hmm... A model could be given with having an infinite low substitution level. When using a digital brain, people would survive ... for some period of time, and then problems would add up, due to truncation error, decimals incorrect, etc. The brain would be a truly infinite machine, but without giving the person new computability power. It seems to me right now. What I intended by CT is the narrower physical version, which says that all physics is computable. OK. This clarifies your point. But the original CT has nothing to do with physics. Also Deutsch's form of CT (everything physical can be quantum Turing emulated (perhaps in polynomial time)) is not equivalent with the original CT, and might be in conflict with it. All physics might be computable, without the entire physical universe being computable (which I thing is figital physics. With computationalism, a priori, the physical should not be computable, but it has to be enough computable to disallow too much white rabbits, something that QM seems to do remarkably well, but it is an open problem with arithmetic. The reason is that the indeterminacy on the computational histories might be too much big. At least the physics in the brain must be Turing emulable, or the whole enterprise falls down. I don't think so. The relevant part of the brain activity, relevant for consciousness to be able to manifest itself, must be Turing emulable, but the brain itself does not. Computationalism presupposes only the existence of a level of description such that we can truncate the (possibly not entirely computable) physical description. That's true, but it can't be guaranteed that an artificial neuron will fire at the right time (to give a concrete example) if its behaviour depends on non-computable functions, such as true randomness or real numbers. If you don't get this right then the artificial brain won't work properly, and the recipient won't be able to walk, talk or think properly; maybe more like a movie zombie hat a philosophical zombie. I suspect such functions can be approximated and the neuron will function appropriately, but there is no guarantee. One good thing, however, is that the problem is an empirical one. If the C. elegant model in the OpenWorm project behaves just like a real worm, that will be evidence in favour of comp. Worst: computationalism suggests that the physics (notably of the brain) cannot be exactly Turing emulable. Indeed the physics will be the FPI calculus on, somehow, the infinite unions of all finite pieces of computations going through my relevant state at the substitution level. Today, we have no reason to believe that this will be computable, and worst, that too much white rabbits will not crop up. A brain, or any piece of matter cannot be entirely computable and still have a statistical behavior which is computable, and indeed sometimes Turing universal, like a brain, or a cell. But the real (with comp) physics of some piece of matter can only be a map of the accessible worlds. An electronic orbital is
Re: Life in the Islamic State for women
Samiya, good answers. I would have liked to 'see' that ALL* false* messengers DO require worldly benefits - some may not. Jesus Christ did not - would you call the luxurious life of the Pope of Rome - his successor(?) - a proof for false messages? Your replies are longer than I can go into at 94. Especially NOT to read further. Maybe 40-50 years ago I could have had a chance...But at that time, after having studied more than 1 religion (in practice as well) I was just losing my faith. That was the reason not to extend my interest into MORE (wider?) religious facets. One thing is for sure: I would have never accepted the brutal/violent punishments as in Sharia-law. I know, it was ubiquitous at those times, even for the next ~1,000 years, but I am against those ancient sadistic methods and even lawful killings. I believe humanity made some advance, at least in this respect and at some levels. I cannot condone the* 'faith' *of those who pleasure in beheadings, stonings, dismemberings, burning alive, no matter for what reasons, nor in a Supernatural of endless love, wisdom and care feeling satisfaction in such brutalities. Maybe I am just an old wimp. * Please excuse my ignorance: do Shiates 'read' the same Quran as Sunnis? * On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: John, please see my answers below your questions. On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:08 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya, please allow me one (two?) little questions: -- How can you tell a 'real' interpreter of God's words from a pretender? -- and I do not only refer to the 'publication' of the entire Script, there may be VAST differences between practical interpretations of the rightfully published details, whatever is included in the authentic total. (Look at e.g. the political variations as 'religious' prescriptions, law systems, state-formats, stuff to learn about the world etc.) A real messenger/prophet/interpreter does not ask for any personal benefit or remuneration. The pretenders seek worldly benefits. Following are quotes from the preachings of some messengers: Quoting Messenger Noah: http://quran.com/26/109 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Hud: http://quran.com/26/127 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Saleh: http://quran.com/26/145 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Lot: http://quran.com/26/164 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. Quoting Messenger Shu'ayb: http://quran.com/26/180 Sahih International And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. --Is there a reson to call HIM and not HER? 1) We believe that God is above gender, but since God is referred to in the Quran with the masculine pronouns, so we follow the Quran's preference of pronouns for God. 2) Though http://quran.com/4/1 states that we should revere the wombs, but it clarifies in other places that worship is only for the ONLY God and that the worship of female deities Satan-worship http://quran.com/4/117 . http://quran.com/4/1 Sahih International O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer. http://quran.com/4/116-120 Sahih International Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly gone far astray. They call upon instead of Him none but female [deities], and they [actually] call upon none but a rebellious Satan. Whom Allah has cursed. For he had said, I will surely take from among Your servants a specific portion. And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah . And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss. Satan promises them and arouses desire in them. But Satan does not promise them except delusion. As I learned (from you), there is no gender differentiation in Heavens, what I found VERY emlightening. Note: The Quran uses the term Heaven(s) [sama; pl:samawat] for sky/space/cosmos. For the Hereafter, though the Heaven(s) and Earth will be recreated, the term for the place of reward is Garden(s) [jannat], and the term for the place of punishment is Fire [naar]. I speculate, but I do not know if there will or will not be any gender differentiation in the
Re: The Object
Good article Liz, I believe that physicists and astronomers tend to follow the teachings of mathematicians from centuries before, and to this list we can now add computer gearheads. To develop the research tools to makes discoveries predicted by math heads, takes a long while and a sufficiency of money. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 1:48 am Subject: Re: The Object More from those crazy mathematicians http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-s-shadow/ Mathematicians weren’t sure that the monster group actually existed, but they knew that if it did exist, it acted in special ways in particular dimensions, the first two of which were 1 and 196,883. On 8 April 2015 at 14:26, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ha! I can believe that a hypercomputing lobian machine can zip through the platonic realities that likely exist, but I must say professor Marchal, that experiencing mathematics at the chalk board, my dendrites do not function as well as your own. I will say the obvious that my neurological wiring must have been sub par when attempting to learn and, equally, important, memorize the patterns that mathematics involves. Memorize the patterns, then plug in whatever numbers. I believe that maths teachers run into differences in human neurobiology, rather than bad teaching skills or lazy students, or whatever excuse. Thus, being able to learn mathematics is truly a gift, and is not bestowed on everyone. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 03:01 PM Subject: Re: The Object On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. Well said Liz. 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
Re: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
By the way I agree with the quote - well, banks and monopoly capitalism generally tend towards that Monopoly endgame that the West is now deeply into, where wealth acquires wealth for no reason to do with the production of useful goods or services, but just because it can. The only way to fix this is via recognising that wealth is a human invention and may not work properly, and replacing it with something else (the government just printing lots of money and giving it away would be a short term solution, counter-intuitive though it sounds, that could buy us a few decades). On 9 April 2015 at 09:30, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, *“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”* And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. [image: Americanwings cartoon.jpg] -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
It's already been the truth, but now with Silicon Valley billionaires and hedge funders, it's become a lot worse. How do we survive? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 5:30 pm Subject: Re: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezeste...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, “The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.” And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. -- 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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
LizR wrote: On 8 April 2015 at 05:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote: you feel that you are the same person from day to day and year to year, even if you know this is an illusion. How would things be different if this were not an illusion? You are less the same person compared to your self from a year ago than you are compared to a copy of you that might exist in the next room. I have no argument with that, I think it's certainly true, but how is that an illusion? Surely the illusion is that you are the same person? Perhaps physical continuity is what we currently mean by being the 'same person'. In which case, duplication scenarios in AI are going to cause identity problems. But, as Brent says, the environment is always active on our brains, so even if duplicated, the copies rapidly become /different/ persons. Bruce -- 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 MGA revisited
meekerdb wrote: On 4/8/2015 4:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: 'Yes doctor' fails because the necessary starting conditions cannot be realized for physical reasons. This does not mean that one cannot create a physical computer that completely models the human brain -- in other words, you could create a conscious human-like entity. But you would necessarily always create a /different/ person in this way, not a copy of an existing person. And not only because of initial conditions, but also because of interaction with the environment. This can't be negligble, because it is what makes the computations of the brain classical (or nearly so) and besides the incidental interactions I think perception is also necessary. Both of these will cause any replicated brain to instantly diverge from it's original. I think this is where Bruno appeals to FPI. But I think it is also why you say that we need to simulate some or all of the environment as well as the brain itself if we are to make sense of personal survival. At the moment, Bruno's dovetailer cannot do this because it picks out only 'conscious moments' and does not find them only in reproducible environments. There is no physics there, so Boltzmann brains outnumber 'people' by infinity to one. Bruce -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
We can change things. Everything these predatory self-interested oligarchs have (and their soul-less, ethics-less zombie proxy humans ... corporations) only exists because we believe it exists. The zombie apocalypse is happening as we speak! And we allow it because we believe in zombies. This 'bankruptcy' is fictional. It's a product of a system of predated-to-oblivion accounting that is in it's endgame. We can believe it away and believe its replacement/upgrade if we want. We are inside the problem. We are the problem. I'm not sure I'll live to see it but change must happen or we're all just slaves forever measured by key performance indicators and the other dooms called 'shareholder value'. This whole mess is all merely psychology. The psychology is that of an utterly capricious narcissist. Very very unwell. And we let it happen. We reward the behaviour. -Original Message- From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 9/04/2015 8:41 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time It's already been the truth, but now with Silicon Valley billionaires and hedge funders, it's become a lot worse. How do we survive? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 5:30 pm Subject: Re: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, “The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.” And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. -- 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: The MGA revisited
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it. The primary physical universe certainly exists, Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a *primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object. There is no scientific evidence for a universal dovetailer either. We don't need evidence here. The existence of the universal dovetailer, and of all its finite pieces of executions is already a theorem of very elementary arithmetic. Those things exist in the same sense that prime number exist. Which is merely as thought patterns in the brains of physical beings. Perhaps you meant its existence in a physical universe. But we don't know if there is a physical universe, I think we do know that. Your point, it seems, is merely that this is not primary, not that it doesn't exist. and the point, to sum up, is that it will be easier to explain the *appearance* of a physical universe to the entities in arithmetic, than to explain the appearance of arithmetic to physical beings. But you haven't explained the appearance of a physical universe in arithmetic. And the appearance of arithmetic in a physical universe is trivially easy to explain -- we abstract the numbers from our experience of objects and of multiple copies of similar objects. No mystery here. But the UDA go farer. It shows that if we assume the brain function like a (natural) machine, then we have no choice (unless adding some amount of magic). No need for magic: it is all in the physics. And so far there is no evidence that it can produce anything like the physical universe we observe. This shows you are still not reading the work with the necessary attention. There are evidences, of different type. I predict the many worlds appearance a long time before reading Everett and understanding that QM gives some evidence for computationalism (for which evidences also exists). Then the math extract a quantum logic exactly where it must appear. This is all quite trivial, and unimpressive to the physicist. One can get as much by adding a few random numbers to any mix. Your 'many worlds' have nothing to do with Everett. Primary physicality is a lot simpler. Occam's razor to the fore Not at all. It assumes a primary physical reality, a mathemaytical reality, some starnge relation between math and physcis, and between mind and physics. The TOE extracted from computationalism assume only elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). The relationship between maths and physics is not at all strange or mysterious. We evolved in a physical world, and postulated numbers and arithmetic to order our experiences. Once the idea of axiomatization of arithmetic arose, all the rest followed. It is intimately related to the physical world because it originated there -- as part of our attempt to understand and systematize our experience of that physical world. Bruce -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of colin hales Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 4:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time We can change things. Everything these predatory self-interested oligarchs have (and their soul-less, ethics-less zombie proxy humans ... corporations) only exists because we believe it exists. The zombie apocalypse is happening as we speak! And we allow it because we believe in zombies. This 'bankruptcy' is fictional. It's a product of a system of predated-to-oblivion accounting that is in it's endgame. We can believe it away and believe its replacement/upgrade if we want. We are inside the problem. We are the problem. I'm not sure I'll live to see it but change must happen or we're all just slaves forever measured by key performance indicators and the other dooms called 'shareholder value'. This whole mess is all merely psychology. The psychology is that of an utterly capricious narcissist. Very very unwell. And we let it happen. We reward the behaviour. Nicely expressed! When the only value is profit; pillage rape is the guaranteed outcome. Personally I don’t even fundamentally oppose profit – when it is constrained within a larger encompassing system of values. In our time it has become unhinged and is untampered by any other countervailing, supervening values; we live in the era of “greed is good”. It is not all that surprising therefore that we are getting the kind of world, which as a result, is good for greed. Chris _ From: spudboy100 via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 9/04/2015 8:41 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time It's already been the truth, but now with Silicon Valley billionaires and hedge funders, it's become a lot worse. How do we survive? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 5:30 pm Subject: Re: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, “The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.” And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. Americanwings cartoon.jpg -- 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
Re: Life in the Islamic State for women
John, I'll try to answer as briefly as possible. Please see below On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:03 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya, good answers. I would have liked to 'see' that ALL* false* messengers DO require worldly benefits - some may not. Jesus Christ did not - We believe that Jesus was a true Messenger of God. http://quran.com/2/87 Sahih International And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed. http://quran.com/2/136 Sahih International Say, [O believers], We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him. http://quran.com/2/253 Sahih International Those messengers - some of them We caused to exceed others. Among them were those to whom Allah spoke, and He raised some of them in degree. And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit. If Allah had willed, those [generations] succeeding them would not have fought each other after the clear proofs had come to them. But they differed, and some of them believed and some of them disbelieved. And if Allah had willed, they would not have fought each other, but Allah does what He intends. http://quran.com/3/45 Sahih International [And mention] when the angels said, O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. http://quran.com/3/59 Sahih International Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, Be, and he was. http://quran.com/4/157 Sahih International And [for] their saying, Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah . And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Concordance of verses about Jesus (Isa) in the Quran: http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=Isa would you call the luxurious life of the Pope of Rome - his successor(?) - a proof for false messages? We believe the basic teachings of the Paul and his successors are against the letter and spirit of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus came to confirm the Law and to explain its wisdom, so that it is upheld with the correct spirit, and not in a half-hearted manner. Jesus taught Monotheism and to keep duty whole-heartedly. Yet, Paul did away with the Law and started Jesus-worship. Have you visited the Vatican? Its full of symbols of polytheism, particularly of ancient Egypt, including the Obelisk right in the middle of St. Peter's Square. Consider the following two verses from the Bible: http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-4.htm *New International Version* You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm *New International Version * Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Will Jesus allow St. Paul to enter the Kingdom of Heaven: http://can-you-answer.com/CanChristiansAnswer/canChrisAns.htm Your replies are longer than I can go into at 94. Especially NOT to read further. Maybe 40-50 years ago I could have had a chance...But at that time, after having studied more than 1 religion (in practice as well) I was just losing my faith. That was the reason not to extend my interest into MORE (wider?) religious facets. One thing is for sure: I would have never accepted the brutal/violent punishments as in Sharia-law. I know, it was ubiquitous at those times, even for the next ~1,000 years, but I am against those ancient sadistic methods and even lawful killings. I believe humanity made some advance, at least in this respect and at some levels. I cannot condone the* 'faith' *of those who pleasure in beheadings, stonings, dismemberings, burning alive, no matter for what reasons, nor in a Supernatural of endless love, wisdom and care feeling satisfaction in such brutalities. Maybe I am just an old wimp. * Please excuse my ignorance: do Shiates 'read' the same Quran as Sunnis? Yes, they do read the same arabic Quran, though they differ in some beliefs, which leads to
Re: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
Well, the mixed economy of a central bank that produces arbitrary paper money and big oligopolies of regulated, taxed and subsidized companies is not capitalism, but the mixed , social-democrat economy envisioned by Marx that would precede socialism, That is in the Comunist Manifesto, and Keynes copied the Marxian idea word for word with the same purpose. Keynes defined himself as bolshevik and ever was. no matter how strange this may sound. The book keynes at harvard is an enlightening description of who Keynes was and what he and their fabian friends were after. The Central bank with fiat money was the dream of Marx and Keynes. They would be delighted looking at this cartoon: For him and their friends (most of them working for the URSS) that would mean that communism in America was near. 2015-04-08 23:34 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: By the way I agree with the quote - well, banks and monopoly capitalism generally tend towards that Monopoly endgame that the West is now deeply into, where wealth acquires wealth for no reason to do with the production of useful goods or services, but just because it can. The only way to fix this is via recognising that wealth is a human invention and may not work properly, and replacing it with something else (the government just printing lots of money and giving it away would be a short term solution, counter-intuitive though it sounds, that could buy us a few decades). On 9 April 2015 at 09:30, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, *“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”* And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. [image: Americanwings cartoon.jpg] -- 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. -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
Inflation and deflation was precisely one of the mechanism envisioned by Marx /Keynes deprive people of their properties, so that the state would acquire all properties without the need to confiscatory laws. 2015-04-08 23:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Well, the mixed economy of a central bank that produces arbitrary paper money and big oligopolies of regulated, taxed and subsidized companies is not capitalism, but the mixed , social-democrat economy envisioned by Marx that would precede socialism, That is in the Comunist Manifesto, and Keynes copied the Marxian idea word for word with the same purpose. Keynes defined himself as bolshevik and ever was. no matter how strange this may sound. The book keynes at harvard is an enlightening description of who Keynes was and what he and their fabian friends were after. The Central bank with fiat money was the dream of Marx and Keynes. They would be delighted looking at this cartoon: For him and their friends (most of them working for the URSS) that would mean that communism in America was near. 2015-04-08 23:34 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: By the way I agree with the quote - well, banks and monopoly capitalism generally tend towards that Monopoly endgame that the West is now deeply into, where wealth acquires wealth for no reason to do with the production of useful goods or services, but just because it can. The only way to fix this is via recognising that wealth is a human invention and may not work properly, and replacing it with something else (the government just printing lots of money and giving it away would be a short term solution, counter-intuitive though it sounds, that could buy us a few decades). On 9 April 2015 at 09:30, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, *“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”* And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. [image: Americanwings cartoon.jpg] -- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: The MGA revisited
On 4/8/2015 5:34 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 April 2015 at 11:16, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it. The primary physical universe certainly exists, Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a *primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object. There is no scientific evidence for a universal dovetailer either. We don't need evidence here. The existence of the universal dovetailer, and of all its finite pieces of executions is already a theorem of very elementary arithmetic. Those things exist in the same sense that prime number exist. Which is merely as thought patterns in the brains of physical beings. A large (and familiar on this list) metaphysical leap, which fails to explain how two cultures can discover the same maths, or indeed why maths kicks back at all. I don't think it fails in that respect at all. Different cultures live in the same universe with the same physics. Cultures are made up of entities that compete in the Darwinian sense. So they are bound to have the concept of units, addition, etc. It seems to me that it may more of a problem to explain the conceptualization of arithmetic in Bruno's TOE, even though it's built on arithmetic. The entities in it that are conscious may have Borg like consciousness with no concept of individuals - they are all aware of the truths of arithmetic, so they all have the same thoughts. 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: Life in the Islamic State for women
Brent: Communism is not a terrible idea - it works fine for families. A lot of political problems come from trying to extend ethics that evolved for families and small tribes to nation states of millions of unrelated people. Thanks Brent, I keep saying this but seem to get reactions along the lines of Stalin was evil therefore communism can't work for anyone, ever. It not only works for tribes, families and villages, it can even work to a reasonable extent in societies where people are closely related. There appears to be a rough correlation between the degree of interrelatedness of people in a socity and the degree to which social welfare programmes and so on are implemented, in my admittedly limited experience. You forgot to mention that it works very well for the upper class, too, who tend to look after themselves with old boys' networks etc. Hence the slogan of the West should really be - capitalism for the masses, communism for the rich! -- 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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 8 April 2015 at 05:35, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? We have agree that both the W-man and the M-man are the H-man. Yes but you didn't answer my question and the answer is important because relationships are not always symmetrical; a dog is always a mammal but a mammal is not always a dog. The W-man and the M-man encompass everything that the H-man was, however they both have additional experiences that the H-man knows nothing about. So although the W-Man and the M-man are the H-man, the H-man is not the M-man, and the H-man is not the W-man, and the M-man is not the W-man. I don't see that this is significant, because it's true whether there is a teleporter involved or not. Let's say that on this occasion pressing the teleport button renders H-man unconscious, and he is sent to either Moscow or Washington by conventional means, then woken up in the teleport booth at the other end. Let's assume we arrange for the experience to be identical to if he had been teleported (maybe being teleported is physically painful for some reason, and people are anaesthetised beforehand). In this scenario, M-man would STILL be (or not be) H-man to the exact same extent as he would be after genuinely teleporting. Whether or not he has a twin (who after a genuine teleportation he might never actually meet) makes no difference to him whatsoever. Now let's have the teleporter knock him out and either send him, or not send him, with or without duplication - let's also say when it sends him, he still needs a day to recover consciousness, and that's how long it takes to send him by jet. So the experiences will be identical in all cases. How does it make any difference (a) if he was teleported and (b) if he was duplicated? In each case the physical outcome, for him, is identical. Or is there some extra magic involved? Perhaps we *should* worry about whether to let each other use the same personal pronoun today as we did yesterday, but we only need to worry about it to exactly the same extent in the unteleported scenarios as we do in the teleported and/or duplicated ones (given the assumption that consciousness arises from physical computation, of course). (As I've said before, the exact same argument can be applied to duplicating AI programmes, which is something that will be feasible as soon as we have one. So if you think an AI programme is technically possible - and if you assume comp, it must be - there's no need for all this agonising over whether matter transmitters are physically possible, etc. Soon we may be able to carry this out for real.) -- 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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 8 April 2015 at 05:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: you feel that you are the same person from day to day and year to year, even if you know this is an illusion. How would things be different if this were not an illusion? You are less the same person compared to your self from a year ago than you are compared to a copy of you that might exist in the next room. I have no argument with that, I think it's certainly true, but how is that an illusion? Surely the illusion is that you are the same person? -- 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 MGA revisited
On 4/8/2015 4:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The main point is that for a physical universe to exists in some primary form, you have to abandon the idea that a brain is Turing emulable. Not so. You essentially admit as much in the 'yes doctor' scenario. If you are happy to replace your physical brain with one simulated in a computer, then you are saying that the physical brain is Turing emulable. This stands to reason if you believe that the brain is essentially classical in its operation -- it is large and warm so quantum effects decohere far too rapidly to have any significant large-scale effect. The operation of this physical object is then completely classical, and determined by physical laws that are deterministic. If you know the laws and the initial conditions, then the future activity of that brain can be completely calculated on a computer. The problem, of course, arises with the requirement that you know, or can determine, the initial conditions. I suggest that this is impossible in principle. Physical limitations are such that in any attempt to extract a complete map of the state of a living brain at any instant, the machinery would destroy the brain *before* any such map could be completed. 'Yes doctor' fails because the necessary starting conditions cannot be realized for physical reasons. This does not mean that one cannot create a physical computer that completely models the human brain -- in other words, you could create a conscious human-like entity. But you would necessarily always create a /different/ person in this way, not a copy of an existing person. And not only because of initial conditions, but also because of interaction with the environment. This can't be negligble, because it is what makes the computations of the brain classical (or nearly so) and besides the incidental interactions I think perception is also necessary. Both of these will cause any replicated brain to instantly diverge from it's original. I am actually interested in Bruno's idea of consciousness; but I'm not clear on whether there is anything useful in axiomatically defining knowledge in terms of provability. What does that tell me about whether my Mars Rover is conscious or not? Brent But whether these means that consciousness is primarily computational or primarily physical is just a matter of which way the rabbit jumps. Bruce -- 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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 8 April 2015 at 01:43, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: You left out traveling through time in a forward direction. Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? Have you ever met anyone who doesn't feel like they are travelling through time in a forward direction? I'm not sure I feel as though I am. More like time is rolling past and I'm staying put. But both cases are wrong, anyway. Physics tells us that we're simply embedded in space-time, and that Helsinki man is embedded at location H/time t0, Moscow man is at M/t1, and so on. -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
On 9 April 2015 at 11:53, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: We can change things. Everything these predatory self-interested oligarchs have (and their soul-less, ethics-less zombie proxy humans ... corporations) only exists because we believe it exists. The zombie apocalypse is happening as we speak! And we allow it because we believe in zombies. This 'bankruptcy' is fictional. It's a product of a system of predated-to-oblivion accounting that is in it's endgame. We can believe it away and believe its replacement/upgrade if we want. We are inside the problem. We are the problem. I'm not sure I'll live to see it but change must happen or we're all just slaves forever measured by key performance indicators and the other dooms called 'shareholder value'. This whole mess is all merely psychology. The psychology is that of an utterly capricious narcissist. Very very unwell. And we let it happen. We reward the behaviour. Well said! I'm hoping the internet revolution will somehow enable this. There have been suggestions in for example The girl with the dragon tattoo (which my other half has read, and says that using hacking to become a present day Robin Hood is part of the theme). -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
If the state take ownership of the central bank things would even be worse Inflation would skyrocket for obvious reasons. The problem is the fiat money, and fiat money is what Keyes and their socialist friends were after. 2015-04-09 0:03 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Inflation and deflation was precisely one of the mechanism envisioned by Marx /Keynes deprive people of their properties, so that the state would acquire all properties without the need to confiscatory laws. 2015-04-08 23:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Well, the mixed economy of a central bank that produces arbitrary paper money and big oligopolies of regulated, taxed and subsidized companies is not capitalism, but the mixed , social-democrat economy envisioned by Marx that would precede socialism, That is in the Comunist Manifesto, and Keynes copied the Marxian idea word for word with the same purpose. Keynes defined himself as bolshevik and ever was. no matter how strange this may sound. The book keynes at harvard is an enlightening description of who Keynes was and what he and their fabian friends were after. The Central bank with fiat money was the dream of Marx and Keynes. They would be delighted looking at this cartoon: For him and their friends (most of them working for the URSS) that would mean that communism in America was near. 2015-04-08 23:34 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: By the way I agree with the quote - well, banks and monopoly capitalism generally tend towards that Monopoly endgame that the West is now deeply into, where wealth acquires wealth for no reason to do with the production of useful goods or services, but just because it can. The only way to fix this is via recognising that wealth is a human invention and may not work properly, and replacing it with something else (the government just printing lots of money and giving it away would be a short term solution, counter-intuitive though it sounds, that could buy us a few decades). On 9 April 2015 at 09:30, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, *“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”* And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. [image: Americanwings cartoon.jpg] -- 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. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- 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
Re: The MGA revisited
LizR wrote: On 9 April 2015 at 11:16, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it. The primary physical universe certainly exists, Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a *primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object. There is no scientific evidence for a universal dovetailer either. We don't need evidence here. The existence of the universal dovetailer, and of all its finite pieces of executions is already a theorem of very elementary arithmetic. Those things exist in the same sense that prime number exist. Which is merely as thought patterns in the brains of physical beings. A large (and familiar on this list) metaphysical leap, which fails to explain how two cultures can discover the same maths, or indeed why maths kicks back at all. For the same reason that two cultures experience the same physics. Maths doesn't kick back -- only physical objects do that. Bruce -- 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: Life in the Islamic State for women
On 4/8/2015 5:42 PM, LizR wrote: Brent: Communism is not a terrible idea - it works fine for families. A lot of political problems come from trying to extend ethics that evolved for families and small tribes to nation states of millions of unrelated people. Thanks Brent, I keep saying this but seem to get reactions along the lines of Stalin was evil therefore communism can't work for anyone, ever. It not only works for tribes, families and villages, it can even work to a reasonable extent in societies where people are closely related. There appears to be a rough correlation between the degree of interrelatedness of people in a socity and the degree to which social welfare programmes and so on are implemented, in my admittedly limited experience. You forgot to mention that it works very well for the upper class, too, who tend to look after themselves with old boys' networks etc. Hence the slogan of the West should really be - capitalism for the masses, communism for the rich! And within a corporation there is no free market, assets are not allocated according to earnings, but according to projections of possible earnings or market capture (Darwinian defeat of other corporations). However, I think we should also recognize that a free-market is also one of the concepts that works well on the small local scale, such as Adam Smith observed, and is the right social economics on that scale. It is only in scaling up that we need anti-monopoly, anti-trust, etc. And the free-market does not extend well at all to assets like land, oil, and money where the profit is mainly in rent rather than production. 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: The MGA revisited
On 9 April 2015 at 11:16, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it. The primary physical universe certainly exists, Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a *primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object. There is no scientific evidence for a universal dovetailer either. We don't need evidence here. The existence of the universal dovetailer, and of all its finite pieces of executions is already a theorem of very elementary arithmetic. Those things exist in the same sense that prime number exist. Which is merely as thought patterns in the brains of physical beings. A large (and familiar on this list) metaphysical leap, which fails to explain how two cultures can discover the same maths, or indeed why maths kicks back at all. -- 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 MGA revisited
Bruno Marchal wrote: The main point is that for a physical universe to exists in some primary form, you have to abandon the idea that a brain is Turing emulable. Not so. You essentially admit as much in the 'yes doctor' scenario. If you are happy to replace your physical brain with one simulated in a computer, then you are saying that the physical brain is Turing emulable. This stands to reason if you believe that the brain is essentially classical in its operation -- it is large and warm so quantum effects decohere far too rapidly to have any significant large-scale effect. The operation of this physical object is then completely classical, and determined by physical laws that are deterministic. If you know the laws and the initial conditions, then the future activity of that brain can be completely calculated on a computer. The problem, of course, arises with the requirement that you know, or can determine, the initial conditions. I suggest that this is impossible in principle. Physical limitations are such that in any attempt to extract a complete map of the state of a living brain at any instant, the machinery would destroy the brain *before* any such map could be completed. 'Yes doctor' fails because the necessary starting conditions cannot be realized for physical reasons. This does not mean that one cannot create a physical computer that completely models the human brain -- in other words, you could create a conscious human-like entity. But you would necessarily always create a /different/ person in this way, not a copy of an existing person. But whether these means that consciousness is primarily computational or primarily physical is just a matter of which way the rabbit jumps. Bruce -- 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 MGA revisited
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:22:20PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:51:30PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: So no conscious moment, even in with a dovetailer in Platonia, can ever be completely counterfactually correct, because there will always be related sequences of states that never get to be computed -- no completed infinities even in arithmetic. Hi Bruce, that's not quite right. All computations eventually get computed by the UD within a finite (but unbounded) number of computational steps. Only in a non-robust ontology does this not happen. I think you need to unpack this a little. The dovetailer is running all possible programs. That is an infinite number of programs, much less an infinite number of computational steps. How can you say that there are only a finite number of steps? And I do not know what finite but unbounded means in this context. It has meaning in closed universe models, but scarcely in arithmetic? Perhaps you need to study the UD algorithm. For any program x, there will be finitely numbered step on the algorithm when the first instruction is executed. Similarly for the nth step of program x. Presumably, for any given observer moment, only a finite number of steps are required to emulate that observer moment, so the UD will run enough of a given program to emulate any observer moment within a finite amount of CPU time. However it is unbounded, because if you pick a number N, there will be a program that is not even started by the time N steps of the UD have been executed. Perhaps you could argue that the infinite sum over all computations supporting a given observer moment will never complete in a finite time, but I think that poses a problem for computing the measure (already recognised as an open problem), rather than being an isue per se with UDA 1-7. I have difficulty relating the number of computational steps to any physical time. This UD is running on arithmetic in Platonia. Each step takes no time, it is merely a relation between numbers. But if steps are numbered with successive integers, there is an infinite number of them and it cannot complete. It is not a matter of time, it is a matter of infinite integers: after any number of steps there is still an infinite number left to complete. The measure problem is insoluble without some further input into the model to restrict the possibilities. I probably slip into using the term time for CPU time (which is an algorithmic resource). Of course, for physical computers, this is the same thing, albeit not necessarily linearly related. But when discussing platonic entities, one should be more careful... Bruce -- 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. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
Wow good cartoon - near the knuckle. Nice to see Mr Monopoly ... and the names on the seats aren't exactly necessary... I must save a copy of that! On 8 April 2015 at 19:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Brent! On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, *“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”* And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. [image: Americanwings cartoon.jpg] -- 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.
