Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> To use a universal machine/number in the physical reality, you need to
> implement it in the physical reality.
>

​Yes I've noticed, and there must be a reason for that fact. A purely
mathematical Turing Machine is inferior to a physical
Turing Machine
​; in fact it would not be going too far to say it is infinity inferior
because one can produce answers and one can not.​



​>> ​
>> Show me a example of  ​Robinson Arithmetic
>> ​ calculating *anything* without using matter that obeys the laws of
>> physics and I'll take your ideas seriously.  ​
>>
>
> ​> ​
> I gave you many references.
>

​Like hell you did! And you just admitted above that such a example does
not exist.​



> ​> ​
> You need just to understand how the truth of some arithmetical relations
>

​You are exactly correct, my physical brain needs to understand
 Robinson
​ arithmetic and follow the script for it to be able to produce a result.​


> ​> ​
> it is a standard result that you can emulate a Turing machine in Robinson
> Arithmetic.
>

​Conway's game of LIFE can't emulate a Turing Machine or anything else if
the computer running the LIFE program is turned off, and neither can
Robinson
​​
Arithmetic.
 ​



> ​> ​
> Indeed, all Turing complete system can emulate each others.
>

​Only if they're implemented in matter that obeys the laws of physics.​

​>​
> But, unless you changed your mind on the fact that 2+2=4 is true
> independently of you,
>

​Truth is independent of me but the ability to separat true arithmetical
statements from false ones is not independent of physics. ​


> ​>​
> you admit to stop at step 3, for reason that you have not yet been able to
> make clear.
>

​Then I will try to make them clear, I stopped reading when things got
silly.​


​> ​
> Physics has already been shown to be needed for consciousness
>

​Then what are we arguing about? ​


> ​> ​
> What is not needed is that the atoms, or time, or space, or energy are
> primitive.
>

Molecules are certainly not primitive ​and neither are atoms, but both are
needed to produce consciousness. It's irrelevant if space, time or energy
is primitive or not because you can't make consciousness with nothing but
primitive stuff; consciousness needs complexity.



> ​> ​
> If you agree that you don't have to drink two times two beers to get the
> truth of 2+2=4
>

​I don't have to do any drinking but if I want to know how much 2+2 is I
have to think about it, and to think about something I need a physical
brain.​


​> ​
> Arithmetic emulates all machine possible experiences
>

​Not without physics it doesn't.​



> ​> ​
> read a good book on this
>

​I have yet to read a book so good it can think.​

​Have you?

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

Re: LIGO

[Brent Meeker]

And probably an even bigger deal if they aren't found.

Brent

On 2/9/2016 2:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

For one, gravity waves are a definite prediction of Einstein's General
Realativity. At some point, the sensitivity of gravity wave detectors
will be such that if they don't turn up, it will be a mjor
embarrassment for GR.

Then, if they do turn up, we can start to use it as another window on
the universe. For example, gravity wave detectors will be just the
pants to peer inside collisions of massive bodies such as neutron
stars and black holes. Also, it might give us good intelligence as to what's
going on in our galactic centre.

So yeah, if found, it'll be quite a big deal.

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:44:48PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:

What difference does it make (to us) if something happens 50 or 650 million
lightyears away? - No matter if  _NOW_ or _THEN-in the deepest past_ .
Iwould be less benevolent and call those "rumors' rather fantasy (even if
supported by some human mathemaital considerations...)
John M

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:57 AM, John Clark  wrote:


On Thursday at 10.30 EST (15.30GMT) the Laser Interferometer
Gravitation-Wave Observatory will announce if they've found gravitational
waves or not after its recent upgrade. Before the upgrade LIGO could detect
binary neutron star mergers 50 million light years away, after the
upgrade it could detect them 650 light years away, a volume over 2000 times
larger. The physics world is full of rumors.

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

Re: LIGO

[Russell Standish]

For one, gravity waves are a definite prediction of Einstein's General
Realativity. At some point, the sensitivity of gravity wave detectors
will be such that if they don't turn up, it will be a mjor
embarrassment for GR.

Then, if they do turn up, we can start to use it as another window on
the universe. For example, gravity wave detectors will be just the
pants to peer inside collisions of massive bodies such as neutron
stars and black holes. Also, it might give us good intelligence as to what's
going on in our galactic centre.

So yeah, if found, it'll be quite a big deal.

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:44:48PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
> What difference does it make (to us) if something happens 50 or 650 million
> lightyears away? - No matter if  _NOW_ or _THEN-in the deepest past_ .
> Iwould be less benevolent and call those "rumors' rather fantasy (even if
> supported by some human mathemaital considerations...)
> John M
> 
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:57 AM, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday at 10.30 EST (15.30GMT) the Laser Interferometer
> > Gravitation-Wave Observatory will announce if they've found gravitational
> > waves or not after its recent upgrade. Before the upgrade LIGO could detect
> > binary neutron star mergers 50 million light years away, after the
> > upgrade it could detect them 650 light years away, a volume over 2000 times
> > larger. The physics world is full of rumors.
> >
> >  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Old Testament, New Testament & Quran: text analysis

[John Mikes]

Telmo, I think you left out the main question:
WHERE FROM did those texts generate (criticized by you only as for
their technical content (different cultures and linguistic backgrounds).

As for the "general problem of AI"? did we ever come to a conclusion
how to identify "INTELLIGENCE"? I am inclined to go back to the - -
linguistic - origin (Lat) as reading (lego) the meaning(s) INTER, the
hidden ones, not the straight vocabulary hit only. And I apply this not
only to words proper I  include paragraphs, even total contents to be
understood even
metaphorically, if you like, as 'close-enough' meaning of the written
words.
Anyway a mind-work above the )materialistic?) human thinking.
Then we can start fabricating the 'machine-based' ARTIFICIAL.

John M

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> Hi Samiya,
>
> We have to be careful. This uses a technique usually referred to as
> "sentiment analysis" and sometimes as "opinion mining". There is extensive
> research on using it for things like election forecasting, and the results
> are not exactly encouraging...
>
> The idea is very interesting in itself, but the current methods are quite
> limited. The common approaches are:
>
> 1) Using a dictionary where every word is annotated by humans in terms of
> a score for each base emotion, do a lookup for the entire text and present
> the final summation;
>
> 2) Using machine learning to train a model to recognize emotions taking
> into account n-grams, instead of a single word.
>
> The first method is very naif, many words have quite different emotional
> valencies depending on context. It also fails to detect sarcasm and other
> complexities of human language.
>
> The second method could in principle work much better, but it requires a
> large corpus of text annotated by emotional valencies. Such corpora exist
> for specific applications, but models trained that way tend to not work
> when you deviate too much from the context of the training data. Religious
> texts are most likely too far away from any useful training corpora.
>
> Worse still, we are comparing translations from vastly different cultures
> and linguistic backgrounds.
>
> Some people suspect (me included) that producing a reliable sentiment
> analysis algorithm requires solving the general problem of AI.
>
> Best,
> Telmo.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> Bible, Quran and Violence
>> Software uses scripture to show what text analysis can do:
>> http://m.toledoblade.com/Religion/2016/02/06/The-Bible-the-Qur-an-and-violence-computerized.html
>>
>>
>> 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: LIGO

[John Mikes]

What difference does it make (to us) if something happens 50 or 650 million
lightyears away? - No matter if  _NOW_ or _THEN-in the deepest past_ .
Iwould be less benevolent and call those "rumors' rather fantasy (even if
supported by some human mathemaital considerations...)
John M

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:57 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thursday at 10.30 EST (15.30GMT) the Laser Interferometer
> Gravitation-Wave Observatory will announce if they've found gravitational
> waves or not after its recent upgrade. Before the upgrade LIGO could detect
> binary neutron star mergers 50 million light years away, after the
> upgrade it could detect them 650 light years away, a volume over 2000 times
> larger. The physics world is full of rumors.
>
>  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Feb 2016, at 02:34, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
​>> ​You need the information that was in your biological brain  
to be implemented in something physical so that it behaves ​in ​ 
the same way, but it makes no difference if the physics is done in  
biology or electronics or tinker toys.

​> ​Or in Robinson Arithmetic,

​And because it is nonphysical the Robinson Computer Corporation  
had zero manufacturing costs


Well, the sharks have not yet patented 0 and its successors, thanks God!





it dominated the entire IT industry and Raphael Robinson​ ​​ 
became the world's first trillionaire​ in 1960. Oh wait...


To use a universal machine/number in the physical reality, you need to  
implement it in the physical reality.


This is independent of the questions: is the physical reality just  
another universal number (as it looks like empirically) and is that  
universal number arising from the competition of (measure on) an  
infinity of universal numbers states/computations, as implied by  
(digital) Mechanism.






​I can find many examples of a biological brain making a  
calculation and ​​of a silicon brain making a calculation and  
even​ of​ a tinker toy making a calculation. Show me a example  
of  ​Robinson Arithmetic​ calculating *anything* without using  
matter that obeys the laws of physics and I'll take your ideas  
seriously.  ​


I gave you many references. You need just to understand how the truth  
of some arithmetical relations implement computations. It is not  
obvious to understand, but the very idea is already in Gödel 1931  
paper, notably for the computation of the primitive recursive  
functions. It is delicate to explain as we need to describe the  
computation in arithmetic, and it is easy to confuse the description  
of the computation (a number) and the computation itself which is not  
in that number, but in the true computable relation that such a number  
describe.


But examples abound in the literature. I will avoid quoting an  
example, because you jumped on the opportunistic confusion mentioned  
above. It is really a confusion between the true fact that 2+2=4 and  
the sequence of symbols "2+2=4"."








​> ​given that it provides a Turing complete environment:

​Big deal, so does the Conway's game of LIFE. ​



It is a big deal, yes.







​> ​If something "physical" is at play, it has to be non Turing  
emulable​ ​so as to make a difference from its arithmetical  
implementation


​What on earth are you talking about? You can make a Turing  
machine ​out of electronics or you can make one out of tinker toys,  
but you can't make one out of Robinson Arithmetic



False. Just study some basic papers, or ask question, but it is a  
standard result that you can emulate a Turing machine in Robinson  
Arithmetic. Indeed, all Turing complete system can emulate each others.


Read the section 5.5 of the book of Matiyazevich: Diophantine  
simulation of Turing machine.


I already gave you the reference.





​ unless there is a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of  
physics is thinking about ​Robinson Arithmetic​.​



In that case, a physical universal number, you, simulates (a bit) of  
Robinson Arithmetic simulating a Turing machine, just to comprehend  
the concept.


But, unless you changed your mind on the fact that 2+2=4 is true  
independently of you, Robinson arithmetic emulates all Turing machines  
independently of you.







​> ​I keep my philosophy secret. It is none of your business.

​That is of course your right but I must say you're not very good  
at keeping secrets as nearly every one of your posts is full of your  
philosophical ideas,


Not one. I deduce philosophical proposition from philosophical  
hypothesis, and computationalism + Turing, Gödel & others makes this  
possible because we have a transparent utterly clear, first order  
logical and arithmetical, notion of universal system, or number (as I  
fix the basic universal system as being Robinson Arithmetic---given  
the reasoning does not depend on the choice of such "base").


If you still think there is any philosophical opinion expressed, it  
just mean you have not yet understand the derivation, which is hardly  
astonishing given that you admit to stop at step 3, for reason that  
you have not yet been able to make clear.





in fact you talk about little else. As for me I'm not embarrassed by  
my philosophy so see no reason to keep it secret. ​


Once I said that about mechanism I changed my mind a lot. You are a  
mechanist, even a digital mechanist,but you stop reasoning for unknown  
reason.






​> ​Not with the computationalist theory of mind. The Carbon and  
hydrogen are only used to implement an higher level of computation.


​Abstract atoms always exist but ​the abstraction has​ no  
effect on consciousness unless 23​ physical​ Carbon atoms 28​  
physical​ Hydrogen atoms and 8​ physical​ Oxygen​ atoms are  
arrang

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> The problem isn't that Bruno's mathematics is too sophisticated, it's
>> that his logic is too silly and the fact that the very thing you're thing
>> you're trying to prove can't be uses as an assumption in a proof.
>
>
> > Where did I do that?


​Every time ​
Bruno Marchal
​ uses a personal pronoun in the definition of a
personal pronoun
​ and then uses wall to wall ​
personal pronoun
​s to try to prove things about ​
personal pronoun
​s.

  John K Clark









> On 08 Feb 2016, at 22:29, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016  spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> I don't mind a bit about the ancestor worship thing.
>
>
> I
> ​mind​
> , during the middle ages and well into the renaissance Greek ancestor
> worship was a hindrance to progress.
> ​ ​
> Whenever somebody came up with a new original idea the response was always
> the same
> ​:​
> that can't be right because it contradicts what the ancient Greeks
> thought.
>
> Today a bright 4th grader could multiply two 5 digit
> ​​
> numbers together in about
> ​1​
> 0 minutes
> ​,​
> but it would have taken the smartest ancient Greek a lifetime to do so
> (and even then would have probably made a mistake and gotten the wrong
> answer)
> ​,​
> and that same Greek would get a F on a 4th grade science test. The idea
> that
> ​
> somebody
> ​like that ​
> could help those in the 21th century working on cutting edge problems in
> physics and mathematics is ridiculous.
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> I admit now to having real difficulty following Bruno's mathematical
>> theology,
>
>
> ​You're not alone, I don't think anybody on this list understands Bruno's
> ideas, and that includes Bruno.​
>
>
> You are the only one stopping at step 3, and as most people have seen, you
> don't have an argument. You just confuse 1p and 3p where it arrange your
> ideology. That does not work.
>
> Then for the translation in arithmetic, I see that many people have just
> not the math background. But then people like Penrose have shown that even
> great physicists does not understand really Gödel's incompleteness theorem,
> so it is normal. Since then, I have realized that only professional
> logicians get it right, and they have no problem with it. I am endorsed for
> my logic by notorious logician.
>
> You do just propaganda, without arguing.
>
>
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> which is not his fault, but instead my inability to comprehend his math.
>
>
> ​The problem isn't that Bruno's mathematics is too sophisticated, it's
> that his logic is too silly and the fact that the very thing you're thing
> you're trying to prove can't be uses as an assumption in a proof.
>
>
>
> Where did I do that? I think you say this just for being negative, to
> defend your materialist ideology, or your ego, or something.
>
> I would prefer we discuss ideas instead of people, so let us stop those
> hominem thing.
>
> I asked for your post if someone else could explain your point, and nobody
> tried. Nobody get your point John, and what has been made clear has been
> debunked more than one time.
>
> If you think you have a point make it clear, without any ad hominem
> remarks, or rhetorical tricks.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>   John K Clark   ​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: God vs the Multiverse

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

I use theology, because all other words I have used necessitate more
> explanation,
>

​That makes sense, ​

​no explanation of theology is necessary because nobody is ignorant of
theology and nobody is ignorant of theology because there is nothing in it
to be ignorant about. Theology has no field of study.​


​>> ​
>> ​Christians and Muslims would most certainly NOT agree,
>
>
> ​> ​
> That is simply false. They accept the definition because they do believe
> God is responsible for the existence of reality,
>

​That is a necessary but not sufficient to be God, above all God needs to
be a person. ​

​No devout Christian or Muslim believes that arithmetic is God.  ​


> ​> ​
> Only strong non agnostic militant atheists have a problem with this
> definition,
>

​No, ​
I agree with
​ ​
Christians and Muslims
​ about one thing, we ALL have a problem with your definition. And the only
reason I can think of for you pushing it so hard is that you like the sound
your mouth makes when it produces a "I believe in God" noise. ​

​>> ​
>> Christians and Muslims would most certainly NOT agree,
>> ​ ​
>> they mean a conscious intelligent omniscient omnipotent being
>>
>
> ​>​
> I have not find one christian at a catholic university nearby who believe
> that god is omniscient and omnipotent.


​I don't
​know ​
what catholic university
​ ​
is near you but it must be a very strange one, do they also think God is
not a intelligent conscious **PERSON**? Do you really think they would they
be OK with calling Robinson Arithmetic
​ ​
or the Higgs particle God?

​All I know is what it says in the official ​
Catholic Encyclopedia: ​


*​*"​
That God is omniscient or possesses the most perfect knowledge of all
things, follows from His infinite perfection.
​"​

​"​
When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every
kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in
the highest conceivable way.
​"

​"​
When we say that God is a personal being we mean that He is intelligent
​"

And according to the Vatican Council

​
 "God is
​ ​
omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and
will and in every perfection"

​The Catholic Bible also says in James 1:17:

 ​"In God "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration".

How something that doesn't change in any dimension could be a person, let
alone a infinitely intelligent person, neither the Bible nor the Vatican
Council says.


> ​> ​
> In fact St-Thomas already explained well why omniscience + omnipotence is
> self-contradictory,
>

​Well of course it's ​self-contradictory, but that doesn't prevent millions
of religious people believing in it so strongly they are willing, even
happy, to die for it.


> ​> ​
> and most educated christians believe that god can't change logic and
> mathematical truth.
>

​Then what is God good for? You think logic and mathematics is all that's
needed, and if that's true then God is just a fifth wheel serving no
purpose doing nothing. ​I say get rid of the lazy bum!

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

Re: Old Testament, New Testament & Quran: text analysis

[Samiya Illias]

Yes, of course!  


> On 09-Feb-2016, at 10:18 pm, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> Hi Samiya,
> 
> We have to be careful. This uses a technique usually referred to as 
> "sentiment analysis" and sometimes as "opinion mining". There is extensive 
> research on using it for things like election forecasting, and the results 
> are not exactly encouraging...
> 
> The idea is very interesting in itself, but the current methods are quite 
> limited. The common approaches are:
> 
> 1) Using a dictionary where every word is annotated by humans in terms of a 
> score for each base emotion, do a lookup for the entire text and present the 
> final summation;
> 
> 2) Using machine learning to train a model to recognize emotions taking into 
> account n-grams, instead of a single word.
> 
> The first method is very naif, many words have quite different emotional 
> valencies depending on context. It also fails to detect sarcasm and other 
> complexities of human language.
> 
> The second method could in principle work much better, but it requires a 
> large corpus of text annotated by emotional valencies. Such corpora exist for 
> specific applications, but models trained that way tend to not work when you 
> deviate too much from the context of the training data. Religious texts are 
> most likely too far away from any useful training corpora.
> 
> Worse still, we are comparing translations from vastly different cultures and 
> linguistic backgrounds.
> 
> Some people suspect (me included) that producing a reliable sentiment 
> analysis algorithm requires solving the general problem of AI.
> 
> Best,
> Telmo.
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>> Bible, Quran and Violence
>> Software uses scripture to show what text analysis can do:  
>> http://m.toledoblade.com/Religion/2016/02/06/The-Bible-the-Qur-an-and-violence-computerized.html
>> 
>> 
>> 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The Small Mammal Brain Preservation Prize Has Been Won

[John Clark]

http://turingchurch.com/2016/02/09/the-small-mammal-brain-preservation-prize-has-been-won/

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

Re: Old Testament, New Testament & Quran: text analysis

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Samiya,

We have to be careful. This uses a technique usually referred to as
"sentiment analysis" and sometimes as "opinion mining". There is extensive
research on using it for things like election forecasting, and the results
are not exactly encouraging...

The idea is very interesting in itself, but the current methods are quite
limited. The common approaches are:

1) Using a dictionary where every word is annotated by humans in terms of a
score for each base emotion, do a lookup for the entire text and present
the final summation;

2) Using machine learning to train a model to recognize emotions taking
into account n-grams, instead of a single word.

The first method is very naif, many words have quite different emotional
valencies depending on context. It also fails to detect sarcasm and other
complexities of human language.

The second method could in principle work much better, but it requires a
large corpus of text annotated by emotional valencies. Such corpora exist
for specific applications, but models trained that way tend to not work
when you deviate too much from the context of the training data. Religious
texts are most likely too far away from any useful training corpora.

Worse still, we are comparing translations from vastly different cultures
and linguistic backgrounds.

Some people suspect (me included) that producing a reliable sentiment
analysis algorithm requires solving the general problem of AI.

Best,
Telmo.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Bible, Quran and Violence
> Software uses scripture to show what text analysis can do:
> http://m.toledoblade.com/Religion/2016/02/06/The-Bible-the-Qur-an-and-violence-computerized.html
>
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Old Testament, New Testament & Quran: text analysis

[Samiya Illias]

Bible, Quran and Violence
Software uses scripture to show what text analysis can do:
http://m.toledoblade.com/Religion/2016/02/06/The-Bible-the-Qur-an-and-violence-computerized.html


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

LIGO

[John Clark]

On Thursday at 10.30 EST (15.30GMT) the Laser Interferometer
Gravitation-Wave Observatory will announce if they've found gravitational
waves or not after its recent upgrade. Before the upgrade LIGO could detect
binary neutron star mergers 50 million light years away, after the upgrade
it could detect them 650 light years away, a volume over 2000 times larger.
The physics world is full of rumors.

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

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Now, this is a religious answer, that does not show cause and effect, in a 
measurable manner, and measuring, plus observation, is what science does. One 
might come up.with scientific explanations of how, certain events in the new 
testament, might work, which is entertaining, but unrepeatable. Repeatability 
is also part of science. Tipler used analogies in physics, with his Physics of 
Christianity. If we all live long enough we shall see if his physical 
predictions come true?  

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2016 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain




The Quran answers the 'Immortality' 
'HOW' question repeatedly with the assurance of subterranean rivers in the 
Gardens of Eden, terming the life of the Hereafter as The Life, and asking us 
to heed to the invitation to what gives us life! 
This link lists some verses of the Quran which inform us about Immortality and 
A Kingdom that Never Decays, its impossibility in this world, and its 
permanence in the Hereafter: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-vi.html";>http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-vi.html
 

   
Samiya 
 

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:27 AM, spudboy100 via 
Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 wrote:


All this taken on faith alone. For those 
of us not blessed in faith, we have doubt, and that is reasonable doubt. Doubt 
is a bad companion, but I believe an evolved survival scheme in nature that 
worked. The danger with absolute faith is that God answers all questions so we 
need put much effort in our curiosity. Why spend time effort and money of it is 
all in God's hands? God answers all questions. Dark matter? God. 
superconductivity? God wills it. If God did not Will it, it would cease. This 
is what I term, an answer to the why questions. I am thinking that the HOW 
questions are now far more important. Why's are questions that might be 
answered by a sheep herder on a hill side. How is a far different question. How 
leads to more and more questions. How do we hook up a ceiling fan? How did dark 
matter form, specifically? How did we have so much normally charged matter, 
versus antimatter in the skies we see, and the accelerators we test?? By this 
reasoning How is much closer to God than why. If you decide so view Conway's 
Life lecture by Steinhart, we all see the How question partially resolved 
(always partially as Gödel reasoned).  Better future scientific equipment will 
surely bring better and better observations and measurements, and better 
conclusions. 


 


Don't ask me why, ask me how?


 


 

-Original
 Message-

From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com>

To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com>


Sent: Tue, Feb 2, 2016 12:19 pm

Subject: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain










Answers to your questions according to the Quran: 

[Note: I'm pasting the literal 
translations of the verses; please follow the link for multiple translations in 
proper English]  






1. How 
did you come up with the idea for life? 


[Quran 67:2] 
The One Who created death and life 
that He may test you, which of you (is) best (in) deed. And He (is) the 
All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving. 


http://islamawakened.com/quran/67/2/";>http://islamawakened.com/quran/67/2/
 







2. What 
are we doing wrong, as a species, and can we do anything about it? 



[Quran 30:30] 
So set your face to the religion 
upright. Nature (made by) Allah (upon) which He has created mankind [on it]. No 
change (should there be) in the creation (of) Allah. That (is) the religion the 
correct, but most men (do) not know. 


http://islamawakened.com/quran/30/30/";>http://islamawakened.com/quran/30/30/
 







3. Do You 
need any help, assistance, from our specie? 


[Quran 57:25] 
Certainly We sent Our Messengers with 
clear proofs and We sent down with them the Scripture and the Balance that may 
establish the people justice. And We sent down [the] iron, wherein (is) power 
mighty and benefits for the people, and so that Allah may make evident (he) who 
helps Him and His Messengers, unseen. Indeed, Allah (is) All-Strong All-Mighty. 



http://islamawakened.com/quran/57/25/";>http://islamawakened.com/quran/57/25/
  









As for answer 2, I'm trying to comprehend 
the meaning of 'No change should there be in the creation of Allah' from the 
narrations of the past civilisations in the Quran. So far I've published six 
blogposts on the topic: 






Mission of the Messengers


Part I: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/06/mission-of-messengers.html";>World
 History & Future Implications

Part II: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-ii.html";>Satan's
 Enmity: Origin & Objective


Part III: http://signsa

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Feb 2016, at 22:29, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016  spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:


​> ​I don't mind a bit about the ancestor worship thing.

I ​mind​, during the middle ages and well into the renaissance  
Greek ancestor worship was a hindrance to progress.​ ​Whenever  
somebody came up with a new original idea the response was always  
the same​:​ that can't be right because it contradicts what the  
ancient Greeks thought.


Today a bright 4th grader could multiply two 5 digit ​​numbers  
together in about ​1​0 minutes​,​ but it would have taken the  
smartest ancient Greek a lifetime to do so (and even then would have  
probably made a mistake and gotten the wrong answer)​,​ and that  
same Greek would get a F on a 4th grade science test. The idea  
that ​somebody ​like that ​could help those in the 21th century  
working on cutting edge problems in physics and mathematics is  
ridiculous.


​> ​I admit now to having real difficulty following Bruno's  
mathematical theology,


​You're not alone, I don't think anybody on this list understands  
Bruno's ideas, and that includes Bruno.​


You are the only one stopping at step 3, and as most people have seen,  
you don't have an argument. You just confuse 1p and 3p where it  
arrange your ideology. That does not work.


Then for the translation in arithmetic, I see that many people have  
just not the math background. But then people like Penrose have shown  
that even great physicists does not understand really Gödel's  
incompleteness theorem, so it is normal. Since then, I have realized  
that only professional logicians get it right, and they have no  
problem with it. I am endorsed for my logic by notorious logician.


You do just propaganda, without arguing.





​> ​which is not his fault, but instead my inability to  
comprehend his math.


​The problem isn't that Bruno's mathematics is too sophisticated,  
it's that his logic is too silly and the fact that the very thing  
you're thing you're trying to prove can't be uses as an assumption  
in a proof.



Where did I do that? I think you say this just for being negative, to  
defend your materialist ideology, or your ego, or something.


I would prefer we discuss ideas instead of people, so let us stop  
those hominem thing.


I asked for your post if someone else could explain your point, and  
nobody tried. Nobody get your point John, and what has been made clear  
has been debunked more than one time.


If you think you have a point make it clear, without any ad hominem  
remarks, or rhetorical tricks.


Bruno





  John K Clark   ​











--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: God vs the Multiverse

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Feb 2016, at 03:25, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​In science we redefined the terms when we use them. God is  
whatever you need to have a Reality.


​Then you'd need to invent a new word ​for​ the old meaning of  
"God"​ and then​ give the entire English speaking world a  
vocabulary lesson. That seems like a lot of pointless work to me  
because the only reason you want to do it is you're ​more  
interested in the word "G-O-D" than you are in the idea behind the  
word.


Not at all. See my papers, I don't use the word God very often. I  
explain the theology of the Neoplatonist, and I use the word "One".


I use god in place where we compare theologies (I remind you of the  
Post of Jason Resch), or where I explain that non-agnostic atheism is  
a theological position.
The god of Plato is Truth. I can give a reference which explains this  
well. This make sense in the discourse of the machine, because the  
arithmetical truth, as seen/conceived by the machine appears to have  
most attribute ascribed to "God", or to the Neoplatonist one:
- it is responsible for our existence and the appearance of the  
physical reality

- it is not definable by the machine or relative number,
- it is quasi omniscient
- it is transcendent and escape all formal theories or third person  
description


God, the good Lord, etc are just nicknames to pint toward It.

Then question like does the One have Will, is it a person, are open  
problem.
Meanwhile it is just a question of taste if you think of it as a sort  
of person knowing all the 3p arithmetical truth, or if you prefer to  
look at it like a thing or a principle, like the Tao.


I use theology, because all other words I have used necessitate more  
explanation, especially for the "star logics" as I have explained many  
time. The theology if the science of the machine + the propositions  
which are true about the machine, but which are not provable, but  
still discoverable, by the machine.


"Theology" makes sense also because we have a notion of soul, because  
we have the tools to study notions of afterlife, mortality/ 
immortality, etc.






​> ​Christian, muslims, atheists, everyone can agree with that  
definition,


​Christians and Muslims would most certainly NOT agree,


That is simply false. They accept the definition because they do  
believe God is responsible for the existence of reality, by  
definition. Then they extend the definition in some way, but this mean  
that they do agree with the definition given, even if they disagree  
with some conclusion of computationalism, or with computationalism.  
But then we can see the difference of theology. In fact, the  
disagreement comes from the coming back to Aristotle which appear a  
long time after christianism was born. Same with Jewish and Christian,  
who departed from Plato at some times too. Only strong non agnostic  
militant atheists have a problem with this definition, like if they  
need a fairy tale notion, like the literalist fundamentalist, probably  
because it is much simple to argue with mockery and insult. Usually,  
they have no idea of the history of occidental and oriental theology.





they mean a conscious intelligent omniscient omnipotent being,


I have not find one christian at a catholic university nearby who  
believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent. In fact St-Thomas  
already explained well why omniscience + omnipotence is self- 
contradictory, and most educated christians believe that god can't  
change logic and mathematical truth.




and one that loves to get involved in the minutia​ of human affairs  
too. Whatever is ​need​ed​ to have​ reality may be none of  
those things. ​


Indeed, but that is their speciation of the definition. That just mean  
that the theology of the machine might not been much christian, and  
perhaps more buddhist but even this is not clear as my paper in a  
journal of theology seems well appreciated by some of them. In fact  
all christian mystics are used to have problem with the christian  
dogma, and indeed most of the time they are banished if not burn  
alive.But why would the strong atheists defend the dogma against the  
christian researchers?


The choice of the word "theology" seem to annoy only the  
fundamentalists, and especially the non-agnostic atheists, which use  
all their energy to defend the dogma. They behave more like catholic  
fundamentalist, which in some sense they are, as only them forbid to  
the ideas to evolve. All ideas at first, and after the enlightenment  
period, only in theology, but there is no reason to no complete the  
Enlightenment, and accept the doubting method and modesty in all  
science including theology.


Another reason to use the term "theology" is that before I use that  
term (I have used "biology" and "psychology" before), some people just  
said "that is theology" to condemn the work like if that was enough,  
and well, that was right, w