Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 16:36, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 23 April 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > >> wrote: >> > I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all > brain > processes stop under anaesthesia. When embryos are

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 16:39, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/22/2015 10:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, LizR wrote: >>> >>> On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: > > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, m

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 4/22/2015 10:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in cons

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 4/22/2015 10:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 16:31, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote: "Both the records an

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all brain processes stop under anaesthesia. When embryos are frozen all metabolic processes stop. On thawing, the embryo is usually completely normal. If

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all brain >>> processes stop under anaesthesia. >> >> >> When embryos are frozen all metabolic processes stop. On thawing, the >> embryo is usually completely normal. If this could

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 14:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: But not without destroying the brain and prod

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 14:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: > > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: >> >> But not without destroying t

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, LizR wrote: > On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: >> > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: >> >> >> >> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in >> >> consciousness >> >> (assuming

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 23 April 2015 at 16:31, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote: >> >> "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions >> which are brought into existence by exercises of h

Re: Origin of mathematics

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote: > > > > Quote: > "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions > which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has > any transcendental existence. Both are static,

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 4/22/2015 9:30 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> >> But not without

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

meekerdb wrote: On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness (assuming you could produce a working replica).

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb > wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote: "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither h

Re: Origin of mathematics

LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb > wrote: On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote: "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has any transcendent

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: > > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: > >> > >> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in > consciousness > >> (assuming you could produce a working replica). I don't see t

Re: Liminal space

If you've spent the last few days walking and contemplating something that was only posted 2 days ago on the list, you either have access to precognition or time travel, either of which should tell you something about the nature of space and time. -- You received this message because you are subs

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness (assuming you could produce a working replica). I don't see that

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote: > > "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions > which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has > any transcendental existence. Both are static, not in the sense of

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness (assuming you could produce a working replica). I don't see that a gap is particularly significant; a concuss

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote: On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 3:24:22 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote: On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing independently of

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR wrote: > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: >> >> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness >> (assuming you could produce a working replica). I don't see that a gap is >> particularly significant; a concussion also causes a

Re: God

On 4/22/2015 7:32 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very controversial: conscious<-language<-social<-evolution<-biology<-chemistry<-physics The last 6 items are fa

Re: Liminal space

I've spent the last few days walking and contemplating this, in an attempt to understand, how one could make use of the block universe. In essence I would like to construct a simple experiment that would allow me to travel if not physically then mentally in time. I have come to believe, that in

Re: Origin of mathematics

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 3:24:22 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote: > > On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: > > I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally > considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing > independently of us, and not conforming to whate

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 14:04, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR wrote: > > >> > I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that >> God is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're* >> conscious. >> > > Bruno also says that mathematics begat our phys

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb wrote: > Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very > controversial: > > conscious<-language<-social<-evolution<-biology<-chemistry<-physics > The last 6 items are fairly uncontroversial, although I'm not 100% sure about the languag

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 4/22/2015 6:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing inde

Re: Origin of mathematics

LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb So is chess real? No, chess is an agreed-upon set of conventions invented by the human mind. It didn't exist before people, and it has rules which can be changed without it kicking back (Castling, the pawn's two-square starting move - and h

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR wrote: > > I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that God > is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're* conscious. > Bruno also says that mathematics begat our physical world and he might or might not be right about that, bu

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: > > I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally > considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing > independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. F

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb wrote: > But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in > consciousness (assuming you could produce a working replica). I don't see > that a gap is particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap. > If comp is correct, gaps make no diff

Re: Liminal space

On 23 April 2015 at 10:58, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Yes, in a block universe, but in an evolving block universe there is also a > special present. > I hope mine is a box of chocolates and a long-stemmed rose. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "

Re: God

On 4/22/2015 6:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 13:04, John Clark > wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange non-stand

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. > I've been on the Extropian lost longer than you and I don't recall a purge by Natasha or by anybody else. And I know who Ray Kurzw

Re: Origin of mathematics

On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For example. a planet is generally considered to exist

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 13:04, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange >>> non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions >>> so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" y

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 12:54, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I have noted this before regarding Lord Russell's Teapot orbiting Jupiter. > For the last 40 years or so we have had the science to orbit a teapot, as > well as two probes around Jupiter--this sh

Re: Origin of mathematics

I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For example. a planet is generally considered to exist - we can observer it (or land things

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange >> non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions >> so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as long as it's >> clear and you use it con

Re: God

I have noted this before regarding Lord Russell's Teapot orbiting Jupiter. For the last 40 years or so we have had the science to orbit a teapot, as well as two probes around Jupiter--this should tell us something! We could insert a teapot in orbit nowadays, making word, flesh, and secondly, we

Re: Origin of mathematics

meekerdb wrote: Is mathematics neither invented nor discovered, but evoked? https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/smolin-on-mathematics/ The review by Pigliucci is fascinating. It almost makes me want to buy Smolin's book -- he seems to be saying much of what I have always thought

Re: Liminal space

On 4/22/2015 3:58 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb wrote: In an evolving block universe how do we know that

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 4/22/2015 3:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: On 4/22/2015 12:26 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote: Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of whi

Re: Liminal space

On 4/22/2015 2:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 April 2015 at 08:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: In an evolving block universe how do we

Re: Liminal space

On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb wrote: >> >> In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in >>> the >>> present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the

God

Yes, ignorance and fanaticism under any banner, including that of science and reason, will leave a trail of bodies in their wake. But unless you have an alternative to using reason and science to understand the world around and within us (divine revelation?) i don't see your point. Religion gives

RE: Origin of mathematics

Really interesting! Good to find someone that concurs with a one-at-a-time universe. I think this will emerge as being right, in the end. Thanks. Colin -Original Message- From: "meekerdb" Sent: ‎23/‎04/‎2015 5:36 AM To: "EveryThing" Subject: Origin of mathematics Is mathematics neit

Step 3 - one step beyond?

On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: > On 4/22/2015 12:26 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote: > > Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. > Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of > which would involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was

Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?

On 23 April 2015 at 08:23, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Capitalism is the ability to pass wealth on to one's descendants. > I'm sure there must be more to it than that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "

Re: Liminal space

On 23 April 2015 at 08:08, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb wrote: >> >> In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in >>> the >>> present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the pa

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 08:50, Dennis Ochei wrote: > I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My > point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their > definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut > off one head the the

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 08:19, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I was > almost booted from there for outing Nancy More as the list moderator who > did the booting back in the day. I usually w

Re: God

On 23 April 2015 at 08:06, John Mikes wrote: > Dennis: > > *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the > gaps of understanding ..."* > > I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at > least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven'

Re: God

Poor nominalists... Ever what you call "science" and "reason" has claimed prevalence over religion has been to produce massacres, since 1789 and even before. the religion of the ones that wave the flags of "science" and "reason", that is, thae ones that claim knowledge without conscience that what

Re: God

I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious belief

Re: God

On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Apr 2015, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>> We are entering the realm of the Humpt

Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?

Capitalism is the ability to pass wealth on to one's descendants. Yes, a Darwinian-anthropological thing! One of the worst offenders was Ming China, which froze everything, which ruined Chinese civilization, and made it vulnerable to invasions by Mongols, Russians, and later the UK. -O

Re: God

I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I was almost booted from there for outing Nancy More as the list moderator who did the booting back in the day. I usually was not a troller and if people zinged me, I ignored it because I was there for Tipler - affirmative, stu

Re: Liminal space

On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb wrote: In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in the present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past anticipating an already set, but later, past? On a mailing

Re: God

Dennis: *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the gaps of understanding ..."* I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for ignorance. To keep pace with the unfathomable Ev

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

Yes, I know it hasn't been done, but i think most people would agree that c elegans could be scanned or that a small neuroprothesis is possible, which is enough of a foothold to say uploading thought experiments are relevant to human experience. Of course none of this is deeply relevant to comp.

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 4/22/2015 12:26 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote: Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of which would involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was a brain prothesis that would simulate a their function I

Origin of mathematics

Is mathematics neither invented nor discovered, but evoked? https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/smolin-on-mathematics/ 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

Re: God

On 22 Apr 2015, at 18:30, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of God >> And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion >> of God > > >> And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist >> aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the WORST >> physicist who ever

Re: God

Hi Alberto, On 22 Apr 2015, at 11:36, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Bruno, I´m convinced that you are a larouchist: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.PlatoAristotle I agree in that there are two sides depending on if they value the mind or the matter as the primary thing. I als

Re: Liminal space

On 22 Apr 2015, at 11:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb wrote: In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in the present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past anticipating an already set, but later, past? On a

Re: Liminal space

On 22 April 2015 at 21:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb wrote: > > > In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in > the > > present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past > > anticipating an already set, but later,

Re: God

Bruno, I´m convinced that you are a larouchist: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.PlatoAristotle I agree in that there are two sides depending on if they value the mind or the matter as the primary thing. I also line up with the mind side, but Aristotle has little to do in this

Re: God

On 21 Apr 2015, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> We are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary -- words no longer have their ordinary, everyday meaning. >> Yes. According to Bruno the wor

Re: Liminal space

On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb wrote: > In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in the > present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past > anticipating an already set, but later, past? > > > On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciou

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:26, Dennis Ochei wrote: Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of which would involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was a brain prothesis that would simulate a their f

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or physics than mathematics, I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato's notion of theology, as

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or physics >>> than mathematics, >>> >> >> I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of which would involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was a brain prothesis that would simulate a their function I should say yes doctor. Since modelling 1000 n

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or physics than mathematics, I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato's notion of theology, as the lexicon Plotinus/arithmetic illustrates. The

Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?

I do not read this thread in detail but the people among you that do not understand that the reduction of workforce in agriculture to marginal levels while increasing many times the production has not been due to mechanical and crop engineering... you people have a serious problem understanding the