Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me a rock program computing the prime numbers. Show me a Turing machine that can compute the prime numbers Easy but tedious, and distracting exercise. Show me how to emulate just K, that is the function which send (x, y) to x. it is not obvious this can be done, because y is eliminated, you need a black hole for it, and a proof that it does not evaporate. You are becoming a physicalist, Bruno! You seem to be concerned by Landauer's principle, and the difficulty of eliminating physical information. This is not a problem for a Turing machine. It is a finite state machine, so define one state as (x,y) and another as (x). Then the operation when the machine finds itself in the state (x,y) is to move to the state (x). Not a problem. Even a rock can do it! How? The physicist in me is pretty sure that there is no K, nor S, in the physical core. But I could agree that with pebble, we can argue that we can implement an approximation of K. But not of much more complex program. If you believe that, you will first need to show me how you read and retrieve the information for the rock, and how the rock computes. Digital computation is just a sequence of states. With the rock, as we warm it gradually (by the sun, or in the fire), it passes through a sequence of states. We identify these correctly to give whatever computation you want. This is the basic pan-computationalism thesis -- everything is a computation, and everything is a computer. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over these quite simple matters. The neuro-science are based on comp. Unless you believe like Penrose that the neuron use a non computable ability to reduce the wave packet? is that the case? Is your theory Penrose theory? No, I don't believe that the neuron 'reduces the wave function'. But your claim that the neurosicences are based on comp is something of an overreach. The neurosciences are based on the study of the physical brain. Like most scientists, they do not have any particular metaphysical prejudices, and those that they do have seldom get in the way of their science. So they use comp by default, You mean that work on the basis that conscious supervenes on the physical brain, and that that brain operates according to regular physical laws. You don't have to accept comp, even unknowingly, to believe that. except Penrose. Comp is a weak and general hypothesis, given that if we except the wave collapse, we don't know in nature any process which is not Turing emulable. Some believe that with a black hole we might be able to implement non-computational stuff, but it is far fetched and controversial. You seem to be asking me to provide a detailed mechanism for the phenomenon of consciousness. That is not my area, so I do not feel myself under any obligation to provide such a mechanistic account. I was asking for a non mechanist account as you are the one saying that comp is false. And I have given such an account, many times. In any case, I can criticize comp without having to provide an alternative. One can say that general relativity and QM are mutually incompatible without having to solve the problem of quantum gravity. I do feel, however, that I have the reciprocal right to ask you to produce the fortran program that instantiates your personal consciousness. You claim that it exists, so why not produce it? The UD does it. I wrote it in Lisp. And what did you find? The truth is that you have not tested any of these ideas in practice, nor have you produced a conscious program or computer. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non-commutation? For the yes-no operator in general. What quantum operator is that? And with what other quantum operator does it fail to commute. They are given and construct from the quantization ([]A) in the logic Z1*. It is rather long to describe, and you have shown no interest for the small amount of technic needed to make sense of the material hypostases. We can come back on this later, if you are more interested. Of course position and momentum are not yet derived, and it is not clear if they will be derived. If they are not, comp fails a crucial test That is not entirely obvious. It might be possible that time and space are more geographical than physical notion, in which case, time and space would not be derivable. Hamiltonian with gravity and space-time structure might be contingent. Open problem. You claim that physics emerges from the UD, but you just happen not to be sure about time and space.? What, in your opinion then, is physics? A set of dynamical laws describing the behaviour of material objects in time and space, or what? You need to be a bit more precise about what you consider to be geographical (contingent) and what you consider to be derivable physics. Physics is often taken to be a set of dynamical laws together with some boundary conditions. The hope of some is that we can subsume more and more of the boundary into the dynamics, so that a true TOE is only physics, with no boundary conditions, geography, or contingencies at all. You need to come clean on what the dovetailer can actually give -- we have to be ably to check this against observable physics in order to verify it, after all. But, anyway, UDA shows first the *necessity* of all this. I am still waiting your non-comp explanation of consciousness. Comp explains already why there is consciousness, and why there might be matter (in a testable way) capable of stabilizing the consciousness flux. Comp does not explain why there is consciousness, it assumes it. And what is more, it doesn't actually tell us anything useful about consciousness. According to your recent statements, consciousness is not even a computation. Also, there is no requirement for me to offer any theory of consciousness, as I have explained in detail elsewhere. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me a rock program computing the prime numbers. Show me a Turing machine that can compute the prime numbers Easy but tedious, and distracting exercise. Show me how to emulate just K, that is the function which send (x, y) to x. it is not obvious this can be done, because y is eliminated, you need a black hole for it, and a proof that it does not evaporate. You are becoming a physicalist, Bruno! You seem to be concerned by Landauer's principle, and the difficulty of eliminating physical information. This is not a problem for a Turing machine. It is a finite state machine, so define one state as (x,y) and another as (x). Then the operation when the machine finds itself in the state (x,y) is to move to the state (x). Not a problem. Even a rock can do it! How? The physicist in me is pretty sure that there is no K, nor S, in the physical core. But I could agree that with pebble, we can argue that we can implement an approximation of K. But not of much more complex program. If you believe that, you will first need to show me how you read and retrieve the information for the rock, and how the rock computes. Digital computation is just a sequence of states. With the rock, as we warm it gradually (by the sun, or in the fire), it passes through a sequence of states. We identify these correctly to give whatever computation you want. Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. What is the interpreter in Platonia? The transition function relating the states. A computation is not a sequence of states, it is a sequence of states and the relation between them. Quentin 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me a rock program computing the prime numbers. Show me a Turing machine that can compute the prime numbers Easy but tedious, and distracting exercise. Show me how to emulate just K, that is the function which send (x, y) to x. it is not obvious this can be done, because y is eliminated, you need a black hole for it, and a proof that it does not evaporate. You are becoming a physicalist, Bruno! You seem to be concerned by Landauer's principle, and the difficulty of eliminating physical information. This is not a problem for a Turing machine. It is a finite state machine, so define one state as (x,y) and another as (x). Then the operation when the machine finds itself in the state (x,y) is to move to the state (x). Not a problem. Even a rock can do it! How? The physicist in me is pretty sure that there is no K, nor S, in the physical core. But I could agree that with pebble, we can argue that we can implement an approximation of K. But not of much more complex program. If you believe that, you will first need to show me how you read and retrieve the information for the rock, and how the rock computes. Digital computation is just a sequence of states. With the rock, as we warm it gradually (by the sun, or in the fire), it passes through a sequence of states. We identify these correctly to give whatever computation you want. Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. Quentin This is the basic pan-computationalism thesis -- everything is a computation, and everything is a computer. 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a discussion with Liz a while back, I challenged this interpretation of your teleportation thought experiments leading to FPI. It was readily shown that such thought experiments were completely orthogonal to quantum mechanics and the MWI. No, You stopped at step 4 (which is already better than John Clark). You need AUDA to get the math of the FPI, and to compare it to physics. We have answered this, but you come back again on what has already been explained in detail: please reread the posts. As I recall the discussion, you agreed that FPI in the teleportation experiments had nothing to do with MWI of quantum mechanics. It has obviously something to do. Everett use it in the context of self-superposition. What I said is that they are different notions, not that they are not related. Normally, the FPI shopuld lead to the quantum MWI, when taken from the material points of view. No, it has nothing to do with it. You are arguing that since my dog has four legs, and my cat also has four legs, then my dog is a cat. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me a rock program computing the prime numbers. Show me a Turing machine that can compute the prime numbers Easy but tedious, and distracting exercise. Show me how to emulate just K, that is the function which send (x, y) to x. it is not obvious this can be done, because y is eliminated, you need a black hole for it, and a proof that it does not evaporate. You are becoming a physicalist, Bruno! You seem to be concerned by Landauer's principle, and the difficulty of eliminating physical information. This is not a problem for a Turing machine. It is a finite state machine, so define one state as (x,y) and another as (x). Then the operation when the machine finds itself in the state (x,y) is to move to the state (x). Not a problem. Even a rock can do it! How? The physicist in me is pretty sure that there is no K, nor S, in the physical core. But I could agree that with pebble, we can argue that we can implement an approximation of K. But not of much more complex program. If you believe that, you will first need to show me how you read and retrieve the information for the rock, and how the rock computes. Digital computation is just a sequence of states. With the rock, as we warm it gradually (by the sun, or in the fire), it passes through a sequence of states. We identify these correctly to give whatever computation you want. Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. What is the interpreter in Platonia? 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. A human is an ape which torture other apes. Bruno (*) a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid, and a machine is stupid if she asserts that she is intelligent, or that she is stupid. (it makes pebble infinitely intelligent, I agree). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? Consciousness is that which you lose under anaesthesia, or a sufficiently severe blow to the head. Like many things, it is defined ostensively. It is not clear what you mean when you as what it actually is? Do you want a fully mechanistic account? Or a philosophical account? Or a neurological account? Or a personal account? What is the question of Maudlin and the MGA? Is a recording conscious? Produce one of the required type (a complete and accurate recording of normal conscious brain activity) and ask it. Good! Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. What is the interpreter in Platonia? The transition function relating the states. A computation is not a sequence of states, it is a sequence of states and the relation between them. The relation between them is given by the sequence order. You are the one who 'interprets' that sequence, gives it meaning. So a computer computing without us, is not computing The mapping is what makes the interpretation. A computation is a sequence of state + a transition table relating the states. As you can map the rock states with an adhoc mapping to any computations, it doesn't mean the rock computes everything, it just means the rock states are not enough, you forget the mapping ie: the interpreter. The rock on itself could compute anything, but relatively to you, it can compute meaningfully only if you have the correct mapping... and if to produce such a mapping that would make sense relatively to you, it asks you to do the computation you want to map to the rock states... in what sense can you say the rock is computing relatively to you in any meaningful sense ? Quentin 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
2015-06-10 15:13 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. What is the interpreter in Platonia? The transition function relating the states. A computation is not a sequence of states, it is a sequence of states and the relation between them. The relation between them is given by the sequence order. You are the one who 'interprets' that sequence, gives it meaning. So a computer computing without us, is not computing The mapping is what makes the interpretation. A computation is a sequence of state + a transition table relating the states. As you can map the rock states with an adhoc mapping to any computations, it doesn't mean the rock computes everything, it just means the rock states are not enough, you forget the mapping ie: the interpreter. The rock on itself could compute anything, but relatively to you, it can compute meaningfully only if you have the correct mapping... and if to produce such a mapping that would make sense relatively to you, it asks you to do the computation you want to map to the rock states... in what sense can you say the rock is computing relatively to you in any meaningful sense ? A computation can be regarded as a mapping between inputs and outputs. A Turing machine has a transition table relating the states -- that has to be provided to define the machine, as you say. You can do this with the rock, you map each rock state to the necessary computational state, and that mapping makes the interpretation in the same way as for any other computer. That's what I said... you need the mapping and the rock... the rock alone is not sufficient... So instead of repeating what I said... in what sense the rock *alone* is computing anything relevant relatively to you without the mapping ? Quentin 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. What is the interpreter in Platonia? The transition function relating the states. A computation is not a sequence of states, it is a sequence of states and the relation between them. The relation between them is given by the sequence order. You are the one who 'interprets' that sequence, gives it meaning. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. What is the interpreter in Platonia? The transition function relating the states. A computation is not a sequence of states, it is a sequence of states and the relation between them. The relation between them is given by the sequence order. You are the one who 'interprets' that sequence, gives it meaning. So a computer computing without us, is not computing The mapping is what makes the interpretation. A computation is a sequence of state + a transition table relating the states. As you can map the rock states with an adhoc mapping to any computations, it doesn't mean the rock computes everything, it just means the rock states are not enough, you forget the mapping ie: the interpreter. The rock on itself could compute anything, but relatively to you, it can compute meaningfully only if you have the correct mapping... and if to produce such a mapping that would make sense relatively to you, it asks you to do the computation you want to map to the rock states... in what sense can you say the rock is computing relatively to you in any meaningful sense ? A computation can be regarded as a mapping between inputs and outputs. A Turing machine has a transition table relating the states -- that has to be provided to define the machine, as you say. You can do this with the rock, you map each rock state to the necessary computational state, and that mapping makes the interpretation in the same way as for any other computer. 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 scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 10 Jun 2015, at 03:35, Kim Jones wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made. This is not what is usually referred to as kicking back. Johnson did not apply some axioms and rules of inference in answer to the idealists, he kicked a stone. But people can kicked stone in dreams too. But do they wake up with broken or bruised toes? Do they ever wake up? Solipsist! Another solipsist? Phew! I was worried I might be the only one. Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that all other minds are you as well? I would not call that solipsism, which usually assert simply that the other mind simply does not exist. But OK. (Taking your sense). Sounds to me like we should make AS IF this is true because it seems to be a way to get humans to respect each other more. Solipsism is a useful belief to maintain. It emphasises how alike we all are which leads to love of self and selves rather than emphsises our cosmetic differences which leads to war. OK. Bruno Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: As Brent has suggested. You simply contradict yourself here. You say It [comp] does not change physics, and If comp change the content of physics, and nature follows physics, it will be comp which has to be abandoned. The you say I show that comp has testable consequence in the content of the physical theories... I see how you make appear a contradiction. As I said, comp is true and then is confirmed by physics, or comp is refuted by physics, and on both case comp does not change physics. Just that comp is testable. These statements are mutually contradictory. If comp does not change the content of physical theories, then it will have no testable consequences. In *that*sense, comp change so much physics that it makes it into a branch of machine theology. Sure. OK. So your claim is that physics is recoverable from the computations of the dovetailer, and that if any of the physics so recovered contradicts physics as developed by the usual methods of science -- and tested by observation and experiment -- then that disproves comp. But then, later we have Comp makes physics NOT emulable by any machine a priori. Now if physics is not emulable by any machine, how is it to be recovered from the computations of the dovetailer? By the FPI on all computations continuing the here-and-now (defined indexically with the DX=XX method). Physics might be based on real numbers, and that would occur if the winner is given by infinite sequence of diophantine polynomial approximations. The first person invariance for the UD delays play a crucial role here. I am not at all clear what you mean by physics not being Turing emulable. Is this simply to do with the fact that Turing machines are digital, and physics assumes continuous variables -- real and complex numbers? That can play some role, yes. But some non computable oracle can also, a priori, play some role. the random oracle can be shown to have some role in the measure. Keep in mind that my goal is just to make that problem precise. When starting the thesis, I did not expect to solve the propositional case. Or is it, as you have said somewhere, that a machine cannot predict what result you will see when you perform a quantum experiment? ? Only when you perform a self-duplication experience. I cannot use the quantum here. As things stand, you do have a conflict here. You have not yet really grasp the step 7. We will come back on this. Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over these quite simple matters. The neuro-science are based on comp. Unless you believe like Penrose that the neuron use a non computable ability to reduce the wave packet? is that the case? Is your theory Penrose theory? No, I don't believe that the neuron 'reduces the wave function'. But your claim that the neurosicences are based on comp is something of an overreach. The neurosciences are based on the study of the physical brain. Like most scientists, they do not have any particular metaphysical prejudices, and those that they do have seldom get in the way of their science. So they use comp by default, except Penrose. Comp is a weak and general hypothesis, given that if we except the wave collapse, we don't know in nature any process which is not Turing emulable. Some believe that with a black hole we might be able to implement non- computational stuff, but it is far fetched and controversial. You seem to be asking me to provide a detailed mechanism for the phenomenon of consciousness. That is not my area, so I do not feel myself under any obligation to provide such a mechanistic account. I was asking for a non mechanist account as you are the one saying that comp is false. I do feel, however, that I have the reciprocal right to ask you to produce the fortran program that instantiates your personal consciousness. You claim that it exists, so why not produce it? The UD does it. I wrote it in Lisp. Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think) Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that position is proved to be nonsense. Comp is just I am a digitalizable machine. String AI is the thesis that machine can think (be conscious). It does not logically entail comp. Machine can think, but does not need to be the only thinking entities. Gods and goddesses might be able to think too. But in saying I am a digitalizable machine you implicitly assume that machine exists in the environment that you exist in. That is not a problem. In arithmetic I will exist in infinities of environments, played by UMs (with and without oracles). Such existence are relative, and phenomenological. It is this environment and your potential interaction with it that provides meaning to the digital thoughts of the machine. I can agree with this. What does it change in the reasoning? It undermines the MGA because it shows that whether a physical process instantiates a computation is a wholistic question, one whose answer is relative to the environment and interaction with that environment. This means that isolating the movie graph and then showing that it is absurd to regard it as a computation is not a legitimate move. The boolean graph contained the part of the simulation of the environment. Then the movie graph does not emulate a computation, and that is what lead to the absurdity. Or you mean that the environment needs primitive matter, but then the boolean graph already does not the relevant computation. Bruno Brent The point is that your generalized brain, as long as it is digital, cannot singularize your soul. If you don't add non Turing emulable magic in matter, the argument shows that matter has to arise from a statistics on all computations going through the current state. If not, could you say precisely when the proof go wrong? Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a discussion with Liz a while back, I challenged this interpretation of your teleportation thought experiments leading to FPI. It was readily shown that such thought experiments were completely orthogonal to quantum mechanics and the MWI. No, You stopped at step 4 (which is already better than John Clark). You need AUDA to get the math of the FPI, and to compare it to physics. We have answered this, but you come back again on what has already been explained in detail: please reread the posts. As I recall the discussion, you agreed that FPI in the teleportation experiments had nothing to do with MWI of quantum mechanics. It has obviously something to do. Everett use it in the context of self-superposition. What I said is that they are different notions, not that they are not related. Normally, the FPI shopuld lead to the quantum MWI, when taken from the material points of view. You said that you had only ever raised MWI as an illustration to help those who were familiar with Everettian quantum mechanics to understand the concept of FPI. That can help, to avoid a frontal shock with the self-multiplication idea. This list is absed in part to an acceptation of Everett formulation of QM. FPI in the teleportation scenarios, and later in the UDA, have nothing to do with the MWI of quantum mechanics, and one cannot be used to support or justify the other. The one in the QM MW use the general idea defining the classical FPI. And UDA shows that the one of the QM MW, if the quantum is physical (s it seems to be), must be retrieved from the FPI, in the material hypostases. Similarly for your attempt to bring quantum logic to your cause. Quantum logic was devised by von Neumann in the context of the collapse interpretation of QM, together with the use of projection operators. In Everettian many-worlds interpretations, there are no projection operators, and quantum logic does not have a footing. In fact, it has been pointed out that there is no such thing as a specifically quantum logic -- there is just ordinary predicate logic and a theory in which some operators do not commute. When you can derive the non-commutation of the position and momentum operators from comp, I might be a little more impressed. UDA formulates the problem, and by the way, the non-commutation of some observable is already proved. OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non- commutation? For the yes-no operator in general. They are given and construct from the quantization ([]A) in the logic Z1*. It is rather long to describe, and you have shown no interest for the small amount of technic needed to make sense of the material hypostases. We can come back on this later, if you are more interested. Of course position and momentum are not yet derived, and it is not clear if they will be derived. If they are not, comp fails a crucial test That is not entirely obvious. It might be possible that time and space are more geographical than physical notion, in which case, time and space would not be derivable. Hamiltonian with gravity and space-time structure might be contingent. Open problem. To be sure, I have some conjecture which would entail that space and time existence belong to the physical. I have explained this, but this needs Temperley Lieb algebra, the braid group, and some relation with the comp Quantum Logic. But, anyway, UDA shows first the *necessity* of all this. I am still waiting your non-comp explanation of consciousness. Comp explains already why there is consciousness, and why there might be matter (in a testable way) capable of stabilizing the consciousness flux. Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me a rock program computing the prime numbers. Show me a Turing machine that can compute the prime numbers Easy but tedious, and distracting exercise. Show me how to emulate just K, that is the function which send (x, y) to x. it is not obvious this can be done, because y is eliminated, you need a black hole for it, and a proof that it does not evaporate. You are becoming a physicalist, Bruno! You seem to be concerned by Landauer's principle, and the difficulty of eliminating physical information. This is not a problem for a Turing machine. It is a finite state machine, so define one state as (x,y) and another as (x). Then the operation when the machine finds itself in the state (x,y) is to move to the state (x). Not a problem. Even a rock can do it! How? The physicist in me is pretty sure that there is no K, nor S, in the physical core. But I could agree that with pebble, we can argue that we can implement an approximation of K. But not of much more complex program. If you believe that, you will first need to show me how you read and retrieve the information for the rock, and how the rock computes. Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made. This is not what is usually referred to as kicking back. Johnson did not apply some axioms and rules of inference in answer to the idealists, he kicked a stone. But people can kicked stone in dreams too. But do they wake up with broken or bruised toes? Do they ever wake up? Solipsist! That does not follow. Dreams can be shared, like with second-life video games, or the MWI. The point was in your suggestion that dreamers might not wake -- nothing to do with shared dreams. Shared dreams refer to a different form of dream -- as in I dream of winning the lottery. The idea that our experience of life is just a dream leads to solipsism. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We might defined nomological inconsistency by [i] ip [i] i~p, for [i] being a material hypostase. ?? What role does i play in the above? Are you assuming i implies p? i is for 1, 2, 3 in [1]p = []p p [2]p = []p t [3]p = []p t p = [2]p p The quantization makes sense only in the material hypostases (and, unexpectedly, in the knower). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the numbers, but that is not the case for analysis, real numbers, etc. Everyone agrees on ZFC in the same sense. Not at all. There are many non isomorphic approach to set theory and analysis. For the natural numbers, this does not occur. All theories have a clear standard model on which we all agree. As Gödel saw, even intuitionist arithmetic is isomorphic to classical arithmetic: it changes only the vocabulary. So does that make set theory and its consequences real? It is a theory which explain too much. It is interesting for logicians. Nobody use it, really. people refers to it when confronted with possible paradoxes, but mathematicians avoid the paradoxes naturally, and the modern one will use some category or elementary toposes to fix the thing. Read books on the subject. Arithmetic has a solidity status not obtained by analysis, or even geometry.Some use ZF + ~AC, ZF + kappa, or other will use NF (a very different set theory), or intuitionist ZF (quite different from ZF), or NBG, etc. So what? That just makes my point that Platonia implies many different realities. First order predicate logic is also a clear standard model. So it must be as real as arithmetic. And arithmetic isn't so complete as you imply - that's why negative numbers and fractions and reals were invented. The first orrder theory of the real is complete. real numbers are an oversimplification of the natural numbers (integeres and rationals add nothing, with respect to computation). Robinson arithmetic is sigma_1 complete (not complete). Arithmetical truth is trivially complete about arithmetic. No other notion of completeness is used. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... That can be useful in AI, and for natural language. But not in QED, string theory or theoretical computer science. A rocket using water instead of hydrogen gas will not work. That does not refute that rockets can work. cdfhjhhj.png Brent :) Lol :) Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is not the interaction with God? Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? With comp, it cannot be computable, as the universe, if it exists, is not a computable notion, a priori. Of course that may be Turing emulable too, if the universe is. But in that case you've just emulated everything, and emulated consciousness supervenes on emulated brains. OK. (But then there is no problem). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made. This is not what is usually referred to as kicking back. Johnson did not apply some axioms and rules of inference in answer to the idealists, he kicked a stone. But people can kicked stone in dreams too. But do they wake up with broken or bruised toes? Do they ever wake up? Solipsist! That does not follow. Dreams can be shared, like with second-life video games, or the MWI. Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quran Audio
Yes I see. For me, it's a struggle to get the real world to conform, nicely, to religious texts My experience of such texts and of life is that there is a divergence between the world we inhabit and what the old guys of the past wrote. As far as i am concerned, human beings (as horribly flawed as we are) come first, because we are weak, we are foolish, we are unreasonable, we are unintelligent, and rage full. I have seen the deeply religious of this world and they are quite good at hiding their flaws to the world, out of not only fear of the almighty, but out or bringing shame, brought to themselves and their group. We are the one's that require help, not God, yet, for inscrutable reasons He decline help. This indicates that this big mind, will not, or cannot involve himself, again, inscrutable. Rather than beat up Mr. God, I would say we adjust our views religiously. If you want to study a physics speculation as delirious as any mad, religion, I would direct you to the Boltzmann Brains, named after 19th century thermodynamist, Ludwig Boltzmann. Fear not, Boltzmann was not a Yahhoodi, but a German, german. Anyway, he postulated that the cosmos needed an 'Observer' of some kind to operate. Moreover, that the observer(s) could be intelligent, and non-human, and having its own false memories of life, and also hyper-intelligent. Back in 2007, Lenny Susskind (yahoodi) came up with a paper called, The Census Taker's Hat, which revisited Boltzmann's thermodynamics, and more or less supported these contentions. Assuming that such things as boltzmann brains exist (some doubt) some have seen BB's as potentially, Jinn's, or Angels, or even God. Interesting speculation, and I ask, how does knowing this help us poor little humans? Ah! For more madness- https://plus.maths.org/content/dreaming-dream -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 10:40 am Subject: Re: Quran Audio I suppose you can call it that :) People on this list have different assumptions, prejudices, misgivings, queries and (dis)interest level in Islam and the practice of Muslims. Just presenting the original document for any who might want to check for themselves. Actually I was a bit hesitant sharing but then I thought that some will object anyway. Samiya On 09-Jun-2015, at 6:56 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Doing Dawa? Interesting. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:09 pm Subject: Quran Audio A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation for anyone interested in listening to he Quran: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ Samiya -- 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 toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email toeverything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visithttps://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 scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: does a group mind refer to ourself or myselves ? That depends on the speed of light and how far apart the individual brains are. It they're far apart and it takes a long time to send a signal to another brain relative to the time it takes to send internal signals in a individual brain then it would be ourself. If they were closer together and signaling took less time then it would be myself. It's all a question of signal delay. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that all other minds are you as well? The crime is intellectual dishonesty. I don't believe anyone this side of a looney bin really believes in solipsism except when arguing on the internet or standing in front of a classroom full of sophomore philosophy students trying to sound provocative. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 09:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I believe I understand what you mean, but perhaps we are talking about different things. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. A human is an ape which torture other apes. Perhaps they merge in the end. For example, the super-intelligence according to my definition eventually develops a TOE that makes it believe that the well-being of others is the same as its own. Best Telmo Bruno (*) a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid, and a machine is stupid if she asserts that she is intelligent, or that she is stupid. (it makes pebble infinitely intelligent, I agree). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 10 Jun 2015, at 2:20 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude. What are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with me.) Thanks! :) So yes, I don't think hurling 'solopsist!' at someone hurts them much. It's basically abusing yourself, if you'll pardon the expression. So, solipsism is a plural phenomenon. I don't care if I am a solipsist, I'll always have each other. - Mini Me. Contrariwise, does a group mind refer to ourself or myselves ? Interesting question. A corporation or an army or a religious sect or some other hive-mind entity might realistically refer to itself like this. Thing is, corporations want us to think of them as individuals and to have similar rights. Somehow this is enshrined in corporate law. I am very interested in the group mind. I think this is where humanity's problems begin. Solipsism is real only in the sense that the many minds are really the One Mind. But this One Mind exists in an enormous number of versions; duplications. The differing perspectives of each of the versions contributes to the overall consciousness, the Big Picture. Someone gets it. Kim -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Right, but only from the perspective of the person attempting suicide. Maybe higher intelligence makes you more successful at reducing your measure. Telmo Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:51, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:39:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. OK, but the same argument can easily be made otherwise: why should you find yourself living in tiny New Zealand rather than populous China? I address that as well. Because of a peculiar conspiracy, country populations follow a near power law, which means it is just as likely that you will be born in a low population country like New Zealand, as a high population country like China, simply because there are more low population countries in just the right number. I remember that argument and I agree. Do biological species follow a power law distribution? Which leads one to suspect that self-sampling is another mechanism for the ubuquity of power laws in nature. I had a proof in one version of my paper that fragmentation/coalescence processes in general lead to power law distributions in just the right way to solve self-sampling problems like the above, but referees made me take it out. I suppose I should try to publish that result in a more mathematical journal at some point, but I'm getting tired of arguing with referees all the time ):. Why not publish on arxiv? Telmo -- 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 -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. -Original Message- From: Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 7:15 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged with the superintelligence. Eventually, against all odds, you might be the only non-integrated intelligence left. Terren On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, LizRlizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. On 10 June 2015 at 09:41, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. The way I resolve that one is to assume that self-sampling requires a high enough level intelligence to have an ego (the 'self' in self-sampling). This is required to differentiate the computational histories we identify with as identity memory. Let's say the entirety of humanity uploaded into a simulated environment, and that one day the simulated separation between minds was eradicated, giving rise to a super-intelligence (just one path of many to a superintelligence). From that moment on it would be impossible to differentiate computational histories in terms of personal identity/memory, so the measure goes to zero. Why zero? There is still one conscious entity. Why wouldn't it remember the great unification and the multitude of humans events before that? Telmo. When I say goes to zero I mean it as in, approaches
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 4:00 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me a rock program computing the prime numbers. Show me a Turing machine that can compute the prime numbers Easy but tedious, and distracting exercise. Show me how to emulate just K, that is the function which send (x, y) to x. it is not obvious this can be done, because y is eliminated, you need a black hole for it, and a proof that it does not evaporate. You are becoming a physicalist, Bruno! You seem to be concerned by Landauer's principle, and the difficulty of eliminating physical information. This is not a problem for a Turing machine. It is a finite state machine, so define one state as (x,y) and another as (x). Then the operation when the machine finds itself in the state (x,y) is to move to the state (x). Not a problem. Even a rock can do it! How? The physicist in me is pretty sure that there is no K, nor S, in the physical core. But I could agree that with pebble, we can argue that we can implement an approximation of K. But not of much more complex program. If you believe that, you will first need to show me how you read and retrieve the information for the rock, and how the rock computes. Digital computation is just a sequence of states. With the rock, as we warm it gradually (by the sun, or in the fire), it passes through a sequence of states. We identify these correctly to give whatever computation you want. This is the basic pan-computationalism thesis -- everything is a computation, and everything is a computer. Which is why I think we need interaction with the world in order to ground a computation relative to that world. 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as over-taking most cosmo theories be it a saddle, a doughnut, flat as a pancake, whatever. And no, you need not agree, but for me it seems apparent. You? -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:00 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. Tipler's idea of the Omega Point was interesting in 1993 when he introduced the idea, but unfortunately in the last 22 years it has proven to be wrong. And no matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review of Bostrom's Superintelligence
Russell, I spent more time on this 'Rod' text than on any other in a long while. It was intriguing that his Bostrom origins etc. were close to my intro-years (80-01) in the digit field. I worked 'intuitively' (in a different domain: in polymers) and was 'creative' - not by *random* invocation, but rather by unusual (denied?) connotations applied to unusual (denied?) domains. (Hence my 30+ patents 1950-87). Lately (for the past 1/4 c.) I fell into (MY!) agnosticism and deviated away. Thanks, Rod, for brushing up my memories of last century thinking. I did not read Bostrom. Best regards Jon Mikes On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: This review of Nick Bostrom's _Superintelligence_ crossed my desk from a Rod somebody or other. Should be interesting to members of this group, although you'll need a spare 15 minutes or so to read it. Cheers, Russell. Review of Nick Bostrom's _Superintelligence_, Oxford University Press, 2014. Is the surface of our planet -- and maybe every planet we can get our hands on -- going to be carpeted in paper clips (and paper clip factories) by a well-intentioned but misguided artificial intelligence (AI) that ultimately cannibalizes everything in sight, including us, in single-minded pursuit of a seemingly innocuous goal? Nick Bostrom, head of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, thinks that we can't guarantee it _won't_ happen, and it worries him. It doesn't require Skynet and Terminators, it doesn't require evil geniuses bent on destroying the world, it just requires a powerful AI with a moral system in which humanity's welfare is irrelevant or defined very differently than most humans today would define it. If the AI has a single goal and is smart enough to outwit our attempts to disable or control it once it has gotten loose, Game Over, argues Professor Bostrom in his book _Superintelligence_. This is perhaps the most important book I have read this decade, and it has kept me awake at night for weeks. I want to tell you why, and what I think, but a lot of this is difficult ground, so please bear with me. The short form is that I am fairly certain that we _will_ build a true AI, and I respect Vernor Vinge, but I have long been skeptical of the Kurzweilian notions of inevitability, doubly-exponential growth, and the Singularity. I've also been skeptical of the idea that AIs will destroy us, either on purpose or by accident. Bostrom's book has made me think that perhaps I was naive. I still think that, on the whole, his worst-case scenarios are unlikely. However, he argues persuasively that we can't yet rule out any number of bad outcomes of developing AI, and that we need to be investing much more in figuring out whether developing AI is a good idea. We may need to put a moratorium on research, as was done for a few years with recombinant DNA starting in 1975. We also need to be prepared for the possibility that such a moratorium doesn't hold. Bostrom also brings up any number of mind-bending dystopias around what qualifies as human, which we'll get to below. (If that paragraph doesn't make sense, go look up Vinge, Ray Kurzweil and the Singularity, and strong AI; I'll discuss them briefly below, but the more background you have, the better. I'll wait here...done? Good.) Let me begin with some of my own background and thoughts prior to reading _Superintelligence_. I read Roger Penrose's _The Emperor's New Mind_ when it first came out in 1989, not that I remember it more than dimly. Much later, I heard John Searle, the philosopher who developed the Chinese Room thought experiment give a talk at Xerox PARC. Both of these I found unconvincing, for reasons that have largely faded from my mind, though I'll give them a shot below. Also, I used to have actual friends who worked in artificial intelligence for a living, though regular contact with that set has faded, as well. When I was kid I used to read a ton of classic science fiction, and Asimov's The Final Question and All the Cares in the World have weighed heavy on my mind. And hey, in recent years I've used Norvig and Russell's _Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach_ as a truly massive paperweight, and have actually read several chapters! Perhaps most importantly, I once read a book on philosophy, but have no formal training in it whatsoever. All of this collectively makes me qualified to review a book about -- and to have intelligent, original thoughts, worth *your* attention, on -- the preeminent moral issue and possibly existential crisis for Humanity of the early-middle twenty-first century, right? Right! Heck, this is the Internet Age, I have a Facebook account and a blog, I'm overqualified! So, with that caveat, it is incumbent on you, Dear Reader, to skip over the obvious parts, tell me when others have covered the same ground, and especially tell me when you think I'm wrong. Now, onward... I
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp makes physics NOT emulable by any machine a priori. Now if physics is not emulable by any machine, how is it to be recovered from the computations of the dovetailer? By the FPI on all computations continuing the here-and-now (defined indexically with the DX=XX method). Physics might be based on real numbers, and that would occur if the winner is given by infinite sequence of diophantine polynomial approximations. The first person invariance for the UD delays play a crucial role here. But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over these quite simple matters. The neuro-science are based on comp. Unless you believe like Penrose that the neuron use a non computable ability to reduce the wave packet? is that the case? Is your theory Penrose theory? No, I don't believe that the neuron 'reduces the wave function'. But your claim that the neurosicences are based on comp is something of an overreach. The neurosciences are based on the study of the physical brain. Like most scientists, they do not have any particular metaphysical prejudices, and those that they do have seldom get in the way of their science. So they use comp by default, except Penrose. Comp is a weak and general hypothesis, given that if we except the wave collapse, we don't know in nature any process which is not Turing emulable. Some believe that with a black hole we might be able to implement non-computational stuff, but it is far fetched and controversial. You seem to be asking me to provide a detailed mechanism for the phenomenon of consciousness. That is not my area, so I do not feel myself under any obligation to provide such a mechanistic account. I was asking for a non mechanist account as you are the one saying that comp is false. I do feel, however, that I have the reciprocal right to ask you to produce the fortran program that instantiates your personal consciousness. You claim that it exists, so why not produce it? The UD does it. I wrote it in Lisp. But you only assume it instantiates your consciousness because it instantiates all possible Turing computations. So it's validation of your theory depends on assuming your theory. 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. By what standard can you judge that an animal putatively more intelligent than you has acted stupidly? A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. 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 scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 6/10/2015 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think) Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that position is proved to be nonsense. Comp is just I am a digitalizable machine. String AI is the thesis that machine can think (be conscious). It does not logically entail comp. Machine can think, but does not need to be the only thinking entities. Gods and goddesses might be able to think too. But in saying I am a digitalizable machine you implicitly assume that machine exists in the environment that you exist in. That is not a problem. In arithmetic I will exist in infinities of environments, played by UMs (with and without oracles). Such existence are relative, and phenomenological. It is this environment and your potential interaction with it that provides meaning to the digital thoughts of the machine. I can agree with this. What does it change in the reasoning? It undermines the MGA because it shows that whether a physical process instantiates a computation is a wholistic question, one whose answer is relative to the environment and interaction with that environment. This means that isolating the movie graph and then showing that it is absurd to regard it as a computation is not a legitimate move. The boolean graph contained the part of the simulation of the environment. That doesn't solve the problem. The simulation of the environment refers to the environment outside the simulation (that's why it's a /simulation/). So if someone asks how the computation gets meaning the answer is contagious and extends indefinitely far in time and space. Then the movie graph does not emulate a computation, and that is what lead to the absurdity. Or you mean that the environment needs primitive matter, but then the boolean graph already does not the relevant computation. I'm confused on that point. Comp1 is the proposition that the brain can be replaced by a digital computer at some level of emulation. The brain's function must be Turing emulable. But then after going through the argument to show that conscious thoughts, as computations, exist independent of material processes, you somehow jump to the conclusion that neither conscious thoughts nor physical processes are Turing emulable (which is why I called those conclusions part of comp2). 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non-commutation? For the yes-no operator in general. They are given and construct from the quantization ([]A) in the logic Z1*. It is rather long to describe, and you have shown no interest for the small amount of technic needed to make sense of the material hypostases. We can come back on this later, if you are more interested. I'm interested. Of course position and momentum are not yet derived, and it is not clear if they will be derived. If they are not, comp fails a crucial test That is not entirely obvious. It might be possible that time and space are more geographical than physical notion, in which case, time and space would not be derivable. Hamiltonian with gravity and space-time structure might be contingent. Open problem. To be sure, I have some conjecture which would entail that space and time existence belong to the physical. I have explained this, but this needs Temperley Lieb algebra, the braid group, and some relation with the comp Quantum Logic. Where have you explained it? On this list? But, anyway, UDA shows first the *necessity* of all this. I am still waiting your non-comp explanation of consciousness. Comp explains already why there is consciousness, and why there might be matter (in a testable way) capable of stabilizing the consciousness flux. If the stability of consciousness is not explained then consciousness is not explained. It's no good saying, There must be an explanation if my theory is right. 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. Tipler's idea of the Omega Point was interesting in 1993 when he introduced the idea, but unfortunately in the last 22 years it has proven to be wrong. And no matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is not the interaction with God? Dunno, Samiya seems to the expert on what God does. Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not computable, which would imply that comp1 is false. Except there's a loophole: if comp1 means replacement by a physical object then the physics of that object is not computable either and so it might work. With comp, it cannot be computable, as the universe, if it exists, is not a computable notion, a priori. Of course that may be Turing emulable too, if the universe is. But in that case you've just emulated everything, and emulated consciousness supervenes on emulated brains. OK. (But then there is no problem). There is a problem, because when everything is emulated emulated becomes meaningless and you've only shown that consciousness supervenes on brains. 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: Quran Audio
Samiya: I was learning about Communism (30s and 50s) and I disliked it because of unjust cruelty against certain people. (Rakosi, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.) I was learning about Nazism (40s) and I dislliked it because of unjust cruelty against certain people. (Hitler, Skin-Heads, Szalasi, etc.) I am learning about Islam (10s) and I dislike it because of unjust cruelty against certain people. (IS and Saudi beheadings, etc.) In my studies I also learned about Catholicism and I disliked it becuase the unjust (dogmatic?) cruelty against certain people in the Inquisition etc. I learned about Judaism and disliked it because unjust cruelty against women. It also invoked the cruelty of anti-semites against themselves. I did not learn enough about Hinduism and Buddhism to dislike them, too. I dislike the new slaverism (=capitalism) and new feudalism (= global misunderstanding of what may be a democracy). JM On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose you can call it that :) People on this list have different assumptions, prejudices, misgivings, queries and (dis)interest level in Islam and the practice of Muslims. Just presenting the original document for any who might want to check for themselves. Actually I was a bit hesitant sharing but then I thought that some will object anyway. Samiya On 09-Jun-2015, at 6:56 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Doing Dawa? Interesting. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:09 pm Subject: Quran Audio A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation for anyone interested in listening to he Quran: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ Samiya -- 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 scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 6/10/2015 7:56 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that all other minds are you as well? The crime is intellectual dishonesty. I don't believe anyone this side of a looney bin really believes in solipsism except when arguing on the internet or standing in front of a classroom full of sophomore philosophy students trying to sound provocative. I'm a solipsist and I'm surprised more philosophers aren't solipsists. --- letter to Bertrand Russell A solipsist is like the man who gave up turning round because whatever he saw was always in front of him. --- Ernst Mach -- 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 5:41 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states of the rock... The rock and the interpreter is a computation, the rock alone is not. What is the interpreter in Platonia? The transition function relating the states. A computation is not a sequence of states, it is a sequence of states and the relation between them. The relation between them is given by the sequence order. You are the one who 'interprets' that sequence, gives it meaning. So a computer computing without us, is not computing The mapping is what makes the interpretation. A computation is a sequence of state + a transition table relating the states. As you can map the rock states with an adhoc mapping to any computations, it doesn't mean the rock computes everything, it just means the rock states are not enough, you forget the mapping ie: the interpreter. The rock on itself could compute anything, but relatively to you, it can compute meaningfully only if you have the correct mapping... and if to produce such a mapping that would make sense relatively to you, it asks you to do the computation you want to map to the rock states... in what sense can you say the rock is computing relatively to you in any meaningful sense ? I agree except Quentin doesn't go all the way to the end. Bruce might have a mapping from the rock states to propositions in English, but what gives meaning to the English? Ostensive definitions, actions and reactions in the world. 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 7:44 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. Ahh, so it's bacteria. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Do you ever get the feeling that this is all going round in circles? That 'comp' is going nowhere? Comp appears to go somewhere quite specific. What go round in circles tend to be the arguments against it, which get repeated regularly. I listed them somewhere (on this forum) so we could have a handy reference, but I'm not sure where now. (Unfortunately none of them are rigorous enough to show that comp is actually wrong, though they do show that it strikes some people - including me when I first came across it - as absurd). I will have a quick look and let you know if I can find the list. -- 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 20:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? Consciousness is that which you lose under anaesthesia, or a sufficiently severe blow to the head. Like many things, it is defined ostensively. Meaning you can point to it, but have no idea what it is. OK. That's what an ostensive definition is. You seem to be after something along the lines of Kant's 'ding an sich'. I can't give you that. It is not clear what you mean when you as what it actually is? Do you want a fully mechanistic account? Or a philosophical account? Or a neurological account? Or a personal account? It isn't me who wants it. You said consciousness supervenes on the brain so I assumed you knew what you were talking about. You asked me what actually is consciousness? so I assumed that it was you who wanted to know. I certainly know what I mean when I say consciousness supervenes on the brain. Don't you understand what that means? What is the question of Maudlin and the MGA? Is a recording conscious? Produce one of the required type (a complete and accurate recording of normal conscious brain activity) and ask it. You should read Maudlin's paper (and Bruno's of course) they aren't very long, and then you will be up to speed on the arguments being employed. Both these arguments are against physical supervenience, in different ways. OK, so outline the argument in your own words. Even in Bruno's theory, consciousness supervenes on brains -- he just has some different ideas about what brains and consciousness might be. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
LizR wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not computable, which would imply that comp1 is false. Except there's a loophole: if comp1 means replacement by a physical object then the physics of that object is not computable either and so it might work. Yes, that does seem to follow. And the brain replacement might happen to work, but we'd have no idea how (magic? supernatural?) Why is it that when ever someone doesn't understand something they jump to the conclusion that it must involve magic or the supernatural. It is not possible that we might simply not yet know everything? I suspect that physics is not computable is the /end/ result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a /reductio/ on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that assumption leads to the result that it isn't. Which is taken as an argument against physical supervenience of consciousness on brains, although it could equally be an argument against brains performing computations. If that is the line of reasoning, then it would help if it were made more explicit. I expect that the reason that it is not more explicit is that it is actually incoherent. If comp1 leads to the conclusion that comp1 is false, then comp1 is inconsistent. Not just false, *inconsistent*. And as Brent is fond of saying, /ex falso quodlibet/. Or better, /ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet/. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not computable, which would imply that comp1 is false. Except there's a loophole: if comp1 means replacement by a physical object then the physics of that object is not computable either and so it might work. Yes, that does seem to follow. And the brain replacement might happen to work, but we'd have no idea how (magic? supernatural?) Why is it that when ever someone doesn't understand something they jump to the conclusion that it must involve magic or the supernatural. It is not possible that we might simply not yet know everything? Just illustrative. The other available alternatives to reality being computable are oracles, hypercomputers, the physical existence of a continuum, and maybe a few other things this margin is too small to contain. I suspect that physics is not computable is the /end/ result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a /reductio/ on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that assumption leads to the result that it isn't. Which is taken as an argument against physical supervenience of consciousness on brains, although it could equally be an argument against brains performing computations. If that is the line of reasoning, then it would help if it were made more explicit. I expect that the reason that it is not more explicit is that it is actually incoherent. If comp1 leads to the conclusion that comp1 is false, then comp1 is inconsistent. Not just false, *inconsistent*. And as Brent is fond of saying, /ex falso quodlibet/. Or better, /ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet/. I think it is made explicit. Bruno has often claimed that his argument is a *reductio* on the physical supervenience thesis, assuming I've got that right. He is trying to show that the assumptions of comp1 lead to a contradiction (and one of the assumptions of comp1 is that consciousness supervenes on brains). I think that's correct. I'm sure Bruno will correct me if I've misunderstood. -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 June 2015 at 19:05, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Do biological species follow a power law distribution? I don't know, but I imagine so - there are generally a lot more of the smaller ones. -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 07:21, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as over-taking most cosmo theories be it a saddle, a doughnut, flat as a pancake, whatever. And no, you need not agree, but for me it seems apparent. You? I must admit I have always found it a bit tenuous to base the cosmological acceleration only on the measurement of light from distant supernovas. It's at least possible supernovas operated differently in the early universe, or that something in between has affected the signal. It would be nice to get independent confirmation from a completely different source. -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 10:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 7:44 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. Ahh, so it's bacteria. It is indeed, at least if we leave aside the ones that have foolishly aglommerated into large colonies that then sit around typing stuff on forums. -- 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is not the interaction with God? Dunno, Samiya seems to the expert on what God does. Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not computable, which would imply that comp1 is false. Except there's a loophole: if comp1 means replacement by a physical object then the physics of that object is not computable either and so it might work. With comp, it cannot be computable, as the universe, if it exists, is not a computable notion, a priori. Of course that may be Turing emulable too, if the universe is. But in that case you've just emulated everything, and emulated consciousness supervenes on emulated brains. OK. (But then there is no problem). There is a problem, because when everything is emulated emulated becomes meaningless and you've only shown that consciousness supervenes on brains. Do you ever get the feeling that this is all going round in circles? That 'comp' is going nowhere? 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 scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 11 June 2015 at 10:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm a solipsist and I'm surprised more philosophers aren't solipsists. --- letter to Bertrand Russell Phew, another solipsist! I was afraid I might be the only one. -- 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 4:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is not the interaction with God? Dunno, Samiya seems to the expert on what God does. Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not computable, which would imply that comp1 is false. Except there's a loophole: if comp1 means replacement by a physical object then the physics of that object is not computable either and so it might work. With comp, it cannot be computable, as the universe, if it exists, is not a computable notion, a priori. Of course that may be Turing emulable too, if the universe is. But in that case you've just emulated everything, and emulated consciousness supervenes on emulated brains. OK. (But then there is no problem). There is a problem, because when everything is emulated emulated becomes meaningless and you've only shown that consciousness supervenes on brains. Do you ever get the feeling that this is all going round in circles? That 'comp' is going nowhere? Yes, because comp is metaphysics. But the part that interests me is the engineering aspect. How in consciousness related to intelligence? I think it's a kind augmentation via running internal simulations and I think Bruno's theory may have something to say about proof and belief. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 11 June 2015 at 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:55 PM, LizR wrote: I suspect that physics is not computable is the *end* result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a *reductio* on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that assumption leads to the result that it isn't. But I don't see that it leads to that result. His argument of step 7 and the MGA purport to reach a *reductio* from comp1. Those arguments are still assuming that thought is a computation. But it is only after he introduces the idea of all possible computations and the UD that he then asserts that consciousness (and physics) is not computable but is rather some kind of statistic mechanics of computational threads. That's a separate point. I was only explaining why Bruno says that physics isn't computable (or trying to, at least). So when Bruno comes on line you should ask him at which point in the argument the reversal is supposed to occur. -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:04:47AM +1200, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 19:05, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Do biological species follow a power law distribution? I don't know, but I imagine so - there are generally a lot more of the smaller ones. I don't have empirical data, but by a combination of Damuth's law and the Hutchinson-MacArthur model, it is a power law, but with a higher exponent (ie falls off faster) than the 1/x power law of country populations. -- 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 -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. -- 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 10 June 2015 at 20:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? Consciousness is that which you lose under anaesthesia, or a sufficiently severe blow to the head. Like many things, it is defined ostensively. Meaning you can point to it, but have no idea what it is. OK. It is not clear what you mean when you as what it actually is? Do you want a fully mechanistic account? Or a philosophical account? Or a neurological account? Or a personal account? It isn't me who wants it. You said consciousness supervenes on the brain so I assumed you knew what you were talking about. What is the question of Maudlin and the MGA? Is a recording conscious? Produce one of the required type (a complete and accurate recording of normal conscious brain activity) and ask it. You should read Maudlin's paper (and Bruno's of course) they aren't very long, and then you will be up to speed on the arguments being employed. Both these arguments are against physical supervenience, in different ways. -- 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is not the interaction with God? Dunno, Samiya seems to the expert on what God does. Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not computable, which would imply that comp1 is false. Except there's a loophole: if comp1 means replacement by a physical object then the physics of that object is not computable either and so it might work. Yes, that does seem to follow. And the brain replacement might happen to work, but we'd have no idea how (magic? supernatural?) I suspect that physics is not computable is the *end* result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a *reductio* on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that assumption leads to the result that it isn't. Which is taken as an argument against physical supervenience of consciousness on brains, although it could equally be an argument against brains performing computations. -- 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: Notion of (mathematical) reason
On 6/10/2015 4:55 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is not the interaction with God? Dunno, Samiya seems to the expert on what God does. Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not computable, which would imply that comp1 is false. Except there's a loophole: if comp1 means replacement by a physical object then the physics of that object is not computable either and so it might work. Yes, that does seem to follow. And the brain replacement might happen to work, but we'd have no idea how (magic? supernatural?) I suspect that physics is not computable is the /end/ result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a /reductio/ on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that assumption leads to the result that it isn't. But I don't see that it leads to that result. His argument of step 7 and the MGA purport to reach a /reductio/ from comp1. Those arguments are still assuming that thought is a computation. But it is only after he introduces the idea of all possible computations and the UD that he then asserts that consciousness (and physics) is not computable but is rather some kind of statistic mechanics of computational threads. Brent Which is taken as an argument against physical supervenience of consciousness on brains, although it could equally be an argument against brains performing computations. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason
LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au LizR wrote: I suspect that physics is not computable is the /end/ result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a /reductio/ on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that assumption leads to the result that it isn't. Which is taken as an argument against physical supervenience of consciousness on brains, although it could equally be an argument against brains performing computations. If that is the line of reasoning, then it would help if it were made more explicit. I expect that the reason that it is not more explicit is that it is actually incoherent. If comp1 leads to the conclusion that comp1 is false, then comp1 is inconsistent. Not just false, *inconsistent*. And as Brent is fond of saying, /ex falso quodlibet/. Or better, /ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet/. I think it is made explicit. Bruno has often claimed that his argument is a /reductio/ on the physical supervenience thesis, It seemed to me that the argument was directed against the notion of primitive physicalism, rather than just the supervenience thesis. I do not remember Bruno explicitly denying supervenience. It would be strange if he did, since brain replacement by a computer at the appropriate substitution level is the beginning of the argument. But, as I have argued, the argument against primitive physicalism fails because nothing is introduced that actually depends on primitive physicalism. That is why the whole enterprise appears to backfire. assuming I've got that right. He is trying to show that the assumptions of comp1 lead to a contradiction (and one of the assumptions of comp1 is that consciousness supervenes on brains). But there are other assumptions. Showing a contradiction only shows that your starting point is inconsistent (assuming that all the other stages of the reasoning are correct). It doesn't point to *which* assumption is at fault. That comes down to metaphysics, so it is all irrelevant for understanding the real world of experience. Bruce You don't like my metaphsysics? That's all right -- I have a whole draw full of alternative metaphysics available... ** With apologies to Groucho Marx. -- 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.
Evolution in the fast lane...!
...or genetic engineering gone mad? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150607-salmon-aquaculture-canada-fish-farm-food-world/ (...unless I've misunderstood the headline, of course :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quran Audio
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:50 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes I see. For me, it's a struggle to get the real world to conform, nicely, to religious texts My experience of such texts and of life is that there is a divergence between the world we inhabit and what the old guys of the past wrote. As far as i am concerned, human beings (as horribly flawed as we are) come first, because we are weak, we are foolish, we are unreasonable, we are unintelligent, and rage full. I have seen the deeply religious of this world and they are quite good at hiding their flaws to the world, out of not only fear of the almighty, but out or bringing shame, brought to themselves and their group. We are the one's that require help, not God, yet, for inscrutable reasons He decline help. According to my understanding, God is continuously offering to help, while most of us stubbornly decline help. God will not impose faith and good deeds on us, we have to WILL faith and choose to be guided to the right course of action. This indicates that this big mind, will not, or cannot involve himself, again, inscrutable. Rather than beat up Mr. God, I would say we adjust our views religiously. If you want to study a physics speculation as delirious as any mad, religion, I would direct you to the Boltzmann Brains, named after 19th century thermodynamist, Ludwig Boltzmann. Fear not, Boltzmann was not a Yahhoodi, but a German, german. Why would I fear a 'Yahhoodi'? Jews are monotheists like Muslims, and the Quran is full of examples from Jewish history, to remind them that this is a continuation of the same message, and to guide us, lest we make the same errors that they did. Moreover, the Quran also speaks highly of the Jews who truly believe. I suppose the same is true for Muslims and people of other religions. God knows the hearts of all, and is best able to appreciate. Anyway, he postulated that the cosmos needed an 'Observer' of some kind to operate. Moreover, that the observer(s) could be intelligent, and non-human, and having its own false memories of life, and also hyper-intelligent. Back in 2007, Lenny Susskind (yahoodi) came up with a paper called, The Census Taker's Hat, which revisited Boltzmann's thermodynamics, and more or less supported these contentions. Interesting. I'll try to look it up later today. Assuming that such things as boltzmann brains exist (some doubt) some have seen BB's as potentially, Jinn's, or Angels, or even God. Interesting speculation, and I ask, how does knowing this help us poor little humans? Ah! I suppose it helps us realise that there is much, much more to the larger picture than we humans can perceive, and thus we do need to seek guidance intelligently. Its humbling, and humbling before the One True God liberates us from humbling before all others. That is, I think, the most crucial role of the scriptures! Samiya For more madness- https://plus.maths.org/content/dreaming-dream -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 10:40 am Subject: Re: Quran Audio I suppose you can call it that :) People on this list have different assumptions, prejudices, misgivings, queries and (dis)interest level in Islam and the practice of Muslims. Just presenting the original document for any who might want to check for themselves. Actually I was a bit hesitant sharing but then I thought that some will object anyway. Samiya On 09-Jun-2015, at 6:56 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Doing Dawa? Interesting. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:09 pm Subject: Quran Audio A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation for anyone interested in listening to he Quran: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ Samiya -- 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
Re: Quran Audio
John, I wonder if you were studying the scriptures / ideologies as well? I get the impression that you were studying the human condition: the results of (mis)interpretations and (mis)applications of religions / ideologies and naturally being revolted by it! Throughout history, humans have pursued wealth, power, pleasures: desires which within moral limits are permissible and constructive for the evolution of society, yet humans have mostly transgressed all bounds and have caused much suffering. What humans don't seem to understand is that their actions are essentially self-destructive. According to my study of the scriptures, time and again, whenever human civilisations advanced to the point of self-destruction, the Most Compassionate, True God has intervened, first by sending His Messengers and His Scriptures to warn humans about their self-destructive actions, and then saving humanity by wiping out those criminals who were bent upon destroying the world. If, for a while, you can suspend the notion that we are the most advanced that humans have ever been, and the notion that God is a terrible, heartless person that people imagine; perhaps a (re)read of the scriptures will help you realise that God is indeed the Most Kind and Most Loving, and enable you to appreciate His Commandments as those which guide humans to protect themselves from harm, lead to better their condition and enable them to build a beautiful future! Our world is also advancing towards self-destruction, all in the name of progress, and we are setting humanity up for much harm and suffering. I believe that since the last Messenger (Mohammad) and the last Scripture (Quran) have arrived, now the time for humanity 'brief stay' on Earth is coming towards its end. People of many faiths, including Muslims, are awaiting the arrival of the Anti-Christ / Beast. It is stated in the Quran: And when (is) fulfilled the word against them, We will bring forth for them a creature from the earth speaking to them, that the people were, of Our Signs, not certain. [http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/27/82/ ] However, as each one of us is in pledge for our own beliefs and deeds, so there is still hope for salvation and eternal bliss! God promises to help and guide those who WILL faith and submit to God's guidance. Samiya On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:12 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya: I was learning about Communism (30s and 50s) and I disliked it because of unjust cruelty against certain people. (Rakosi, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.) I was learning about Nazism (40s) and I dislliked it because of unjust cruelty against certain people. (Hitler, Skin-Heads, Szalasi, etc.) I am learning about Islam (10s) and I dislike it because of unjust cruelty against certain people. (IS and Saudi beheadings, etc.) In my studies I also learned about Catholicism and I disliked it becuase the unjust (dogmatic?) cruelty against certain people in the Inquisition etc. I learned about Judaism and disliked it because unjust cruelty against women. It also invoked the cruelty of anti-semites against themselves. I did not learn enough about Hinduism and Buddhism to dislike them, too. I dislike the new slaverism (=capitalism) and new feudalism (= global misunderstanding of what may be a democracy). JM On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose you can call it that :) People on this list have different assumptions, prejudices, misgivings, queries and (dis)interest level in Islam and the practice of Muslims. Just presenting the original document for any who might want to check for themselves. Actually I was a bit hesitant sharing but then I thought that some will object anyway. Samiya On 09-Jun-2015, at 6:56 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Doing Dawa? Interesting. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:09 pm Subject: Quran Audio A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation for anyone interested in listening to he Quran: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ Samiya -- 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.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. But your original statement didn't talk about winners and losers, it talked about elimination, specifically it sounded as though you were in favour of one ape eliminating another one (on a species basis, going by your mention of neanderthals). So, are you actually in favour of genocide, or were you just shooting your mouth off? Are you a Neanderthal or are you just trolling? 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.
