Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[Brent Meeker]

Having evolved in the hot climate of Africa humans are a mutation that 
lost hair and evolved sweat.  This allowed them to have great physical 
endurance in the heat and to run down prey.


What I'd like to know is why some members of Homo sapiens refuse to 
learn what 400yrs of science has found out and instead make a virtue of 
ignorance and faith.


Brent

On 2/14/2018 4:39 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Then how come the Homo sapiens are the rare creatures without any 
natural clothing, unlike almost all other creatures?
Something to be apprehensive about: 
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-cursed-tree.html


On 13-Feb-2018, at 10:06 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:


Except it has the same kind of non-functional stuff as chimpanzees, 
wolves, mice, etc.  have.  So maybe Adam's story is fake news.


Brent

On 2/13/2018 8:33 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Or may the entire human genome was functional once, but has been 
corrupted... Adam's story is an example: Adam's Attempt to Improve 
upon Allah's Creation 
 




On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 2/13/2018 9:13 AM, John Clark wrote:


/
/


​That is just not true. ​
In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs.
There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are
8 bits per byte so that comes out to 750 meg.


And it is estimated that there are only 22,000 functional genes,
constituted of 34 million base pairs (only 1% of the human genome).


Just 750 meg, that's about the same amount of information as a
old CD disk could hold
​
when they first came out
​ ​
35 years ago! And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded,
there is a ridiculous amount of redundancy in the human genome.


There's some redundancy, but also lot of just free-rider junk
plus stuff that may have be useful in an evolutionary sense but
does nothing for the individual




And yet that
tiny
​ amount of information was enough to reshape the surface of a
planet. And there is more to come, I think that information
could grow and reshape the entire galaxy, if it doesn't
stagnate or destroy itself first.


Then you have to ask yourself, "What's its motivation?"  You may
have intended it to build Dyson spheres, but mutation happens.
And what mutation will be favored?  The ones that make lots of
copies of themselves.

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
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.

--
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 

Re: Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

[Pierz]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:46:34 AM UTC+11, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:45:59 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote:
>>
>> Quantum physics tells us that anything that commutes with the hamiltonian 
>> is preserved (doesn't change), the hamiltonian being the measure of energy 
>> in a system. This has led me to understand energy as a measure of change 
>> over time in a physical system. That might be obvious, except I've never 
>> heard anybody say it quite like that - with the result that many people 
>> tend to reify energy as some kind of physical "thing". The fact that energy 
>> and matter are interconvertible has led me to the summary that change 
>> across space is matter, change across time is energy. The only problem in 
>> this picture is potential energy, which you could simply call "deferred 
>> change", but that does beg the question as to how it is deferred. I'm 
>> trying to think about this in relation to chemical energy - the potential 
>> energy held in chemical bonds. When I studied chemistry I was simply told 
>> that certain bonds are more stable and have lower energy than other bonds 
>> which are less stable and have higher energy. So energy is released when a 
>> molecule reacts with another to form a more stable compound. The reason for 
>> and nature of the stability wasn't explained. So I'm wondering, is the 
>> "potential energy" in the chemical bond actually a kind of very localised 
>> motion, with more motion occurring in high energy bonds than in lower 
>> energy ones? In other words, the energy (motion/change) is temporarily 
>> contained in the small area of the bond, thus hiding the energy it as it 
>> were from the environment? If so, then this form of potential energy is not 
>> really different in kind from other types of energy, it's just relatively 
>> isolated. If this is valid, perhaps a similar analysis of other forms of 
>> potential energy such as gravitational potential might be possible too? Can 
>> a physicist/physical chemist perhaps shed light on whether my speculation 
>> here regarding chemical energy is valid? 
>>
>
> The Hamiltonian is the generator of time development. A quantum wave 
> function  ψ(t) is pushed to the time t' > t by the operator exp(-iH(t' - 
> t)) so that ψ(t') =  exp(-iH(t' - t))ψ(t).
>
> LC
>
Yes the good ole Schrödinger equation. The fact that the Hamiltonian is the 
generator of time development *and* the operator for energy helped me to 
understand that energy is change. But I'm trying to understand something 
about the nature of the energy held in chemical bonds. A high energy 
chemical bond must have a corresponding Hamiltonian that shows some kind of 
evolution in the state of the electrons involved in the bond. The so-called 
potential energy must be represented as some kind of state evolution of the 
electrons - right?

-- 
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: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 11:26:30 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 , Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> *> we like to make comparisons between biological and molecular 
>> biological systems with nanotechnology, but there are departures. *
>
> Yes there certainly are departures between biology and engineering 
> because intelligent designs are, well, intelligent, but the stuff evolution 
> comes out with is idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid 
> tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it 
> couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 
> degrees! 
>

*Mother Nature did come up with a wheel; a rotating tail on some specie. I 
forget its name. AG*
 

> Rational designers had little difficulty coming up with the wheel. The 
> only advantage Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains it 
> was the only way complex objects could get built.
>
> I can think of 5 reasons for nature’s very poor design skills, the last 
> one is the most important:
>
> 1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions 
> that may no longer exist, that's why moths have an instinct to fly into 
> candle flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years 
> or so, evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into 
> a ball when confronted by the major predator they face today, the 
> automobile. The only problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles.
>
> 2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards, 
> the connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must pass 
> through it before it hits the light sensitive cells, and the optic nerve 
> must pass through the retina creating a blind spot. There's no doubt this 
> degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was reversed as it 
> is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too 
> late for that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be 
> viable. Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms, it's 
> very difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are 
> found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric 
> system is clearly superior. That's why we still have Microsoft Windows. 
> Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new things but it doesn't 
> abandon the old because the intermediate stages must also work. That's also 
> why humans have all the old brain structures that lizards have as well as 
> new ones. 
>
> 3) Lack of Genetic Variation: Mutations are random and you might not get 
> the mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better forflight than 
> the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right 
> mutations for feathers at the right time and skin flaps are good enough. 
> And an animal doesn’t need to be perfect or even close to it, all it needs 
> is to be a little better than the competition.
>
> 4) An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another: One gene can 
> give you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give you 
> sickle cell anemia.
>
> 5) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all. A 
> jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a 
> prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while 
> the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you 
> must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves the 
> operation of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of 
> some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet. If the tire on your 
> car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on, 
> but evolution could never do something like that because when you take the 
> old tire off you have temporarily made things worse, now you have no tire 
> at all. With evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter how many, MUST be 
> an immediate improvement over the previous one. it can't think more than 
> one step ahead, it doesn't understand one step backward two steps forward.
>
> And that's why there are no 100 ton supersonic birds or nuclear powered 
> horses, and that’s why we can’t 
> ​even ​
> move our head by 360 degrees. 
>
> *> If von Neumann probes do migrate into space and throughout a galaxy 
>> they probably do so in a pretty conservative fashion. In fact over time 
>> they would evolve instead of performing in a designed manner.*
>
> A von Neumann probe wouldn’t evolve unless the probe makers designed them 
> to, and they’d be pretty stupid to do that. Evolution needs mutation, 
> errors that change the information in DNA when a copy of it is made. The 
> typical error rate for DNA reproduction is about one error per 100 million 
> nucleotides.
>
> Each nucleotides contains 2 bits of information so that’s one error per 50 
> 

Re: Satellites show sea level rise is accelerating

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 8:59:05 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 3:54:32 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:36 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​> ​
>>>
>>> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/satellites-show-sea-level-rise-is-accelerating/
>>>  
>>> 
>>>
>>> Compare with John Clark's claim of rise of one inch per decade. AG
>>>
>>
>> OK
>> ​ 
>> lets compare, it says what we now for sure is that has been "3 inches of 
>> sea level rise in the past quarter century". They made a guess that it 
>> would accelerate so sea level would be "2 feet higher by the end of the 
>> century", well maybe so, but that would still make for a pretty dull 
>> disaster movie. Sure 
>> ​it​
>>  might cause difficulties but on a list of world problems it wouldn't 
>> even make the top ten
>> ​.​
>> I mean its not as if this sort of thing was unprecedented, the sea has 
>> risen 400 *FEET* since the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago
>> ​ 
>> and during that time the human race not only survived it thrived.  
>>
>>   ​John K Clark​
>>
>
> It is not the same disaster as some sci-fi films have portrayed. However, 
> it would mean cities such as New York would need sea walls much like 
> Holland. Many major cities on the coast, with the exception of Los Angeles, 
> would require extensive sea walls much as seen with Holland. Remember that 
> while a few feet does not sound like much, given that coasts have small 
> slopes, say only a few degrees, a few feet of sea level rise can mean 
> hundreds or thousands of feet the ocean encroaches. Pleistocene humans did 
> not have sea ports.
>
> LC
>

*RIght, no sea ports in the Pleistocene era. Of course I knew that and my 
question to Clark was entirely rhetorical. Why didn't he know the obvious? 
And there are other, possibly dire effects of the **Greenland ice sheet 
melting, such as change in the thermohaline current, that is shift of the 
Gulf Stream making Britain and Northern Europe effectively an arctic zone. 
Ho-hum, nothing to worry about as Florida goes below sea level. AG*

-- 
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: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[John Clark]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 , Lawrence Crowell  wrote:

> *> we like to make comparisons between biological and molecular biological
> systems with nanotechnology, but there are departures. *

Yes there certainly are departures between biology and engineering
because intelligent designs are, well, intelligent, but the stuff evolution
comes out with is idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid
tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it
couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360
degrees! Rational designers had little difficulty coming up with the wheel.
The only advantage Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains
it was the only way complex objects could get built.

I can think of 5 reasons for nature’s very poor design skills, the last one
is the most important:

1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions that
may no longer exist, that's why moths have an instinct to fly into candle
flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years or
so, evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into a
ball when confronted by the major predator they face today, the automobile.
The only problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles.

2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards,
the connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must pass
through it before it hits the light sensitive cells, and the optic nerve
must pass through the retina creating a blind spot. There's no doubt this
degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was reversed as it
is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too
late for that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be
viable. Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms, it's
very difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are
found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric
system is clearly superior. That's why we still have Microsoft Windows.
Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new things but it doesn't
abandon the old because the intermediate stages must also work. That's also
why humans have all the old brain structures that lizards have as well as
new ones.

3) Lack of Genetic Variation: Mutations are random and you might not get
the mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better forflight than
the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right
mutations for feathers at the right time and skin flaps are good enough.
And an animal doesn’t need to be perfect or even close to it, all it needs
is to be a little better than the competition.

4) An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another: One gene can
give you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give you
sickle cell anemia.

5) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all. A
jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves the
operation of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of
some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet. If the tire on your
car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on,
but evolution could never do something like that because when you take the
old tire off you have temporarily made things worse, now you have no tire
at all. With evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter how many, MUST be
an immediate improvement over the previous one. it can't think more than
one step ahead, it doesn't understand one step backward two steps forward.

And that's why there are no 100 ton supersonic birds or nuclear powered
horses, and that’s why we can’t
​even ​
move our head by 360 degrees.

*> If von Neumann probes do migrate into space and throughout a galaxy they
> probably do so in a pretty conservative fashion. In fact over time they
> would evolve instead of performing in a designed manner.*

A von Neumann probe wouldn’t evolve unless the probe makers designed them
to, and they’d be pretty stupid to do that. Evolution needs mutation,
errors that change the information in DNA when a copy of it is made. The
typical error rate for DNA reproduction is about one error per 100 million
nucleotides.

Each nucleotides contains 2 bits of information so that’s one error per 50
million bits.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

One error in 50 million bits is bad, its lousy! Your computer wouldn’t work
it it had a error rate that huge, the internet would not work, our entire
information economy would collapse. But it hasn’t collapsed because Claude
Shannon showed us 70 years ago how to encode information so it can 

Re: Satellites show sea level rise is accelerating

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 3:54:32 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:36 AM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>>
>> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/satellites-show-sea-level-rise-is-accelerating/
>>  
>> 
>>
>> Compare with John Clark's claim of rise of one inch per decade. AG
>>
>
> OK
> ​ 
> lets compare, it says what we now for sure is that has been "3 inches of 
> sea level rise in the past quarter century". They made a guess that it 
> would accelerate so sea level would be "2 feet higher by the end of the 
> century", well maybe so, but that would still make for a pretty dull 
> disaster movie. Sure 
> ​it​
>  might cause difficulties but on a list of world problems it wouldn't even 
> make the top ten
> ​.​
> I mean its not as if this sort of thing was unprecedented, the sea has 
> risen 400 *FEET* since the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago
> ​ 
> and during that time the human race not only survived it thrived.  
>
>   ​John K Clark​
>

It is not the same disaster as some sci-fi films have portrayed. However, 
it would mean cities such as New York would need sea walls much like 
Holland. Many major cities on the coast, with the exception of Los Angeles, 
would require extensive sea walls much as seen with Holland. Remember that 
while a few feet does not sound like much, given that coasts have small 
slopes, say only a few degrees, a few feet of sea level rise can mean 
hundreds or thousands of feet the ocean encroaches. Pleistocene humans did 
not have sea ports.

LC

-- 
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: Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:45:59 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote:
>
> Quantum physics tells us that anything that commutes with the hamiltonian 
> is preserved (doesn't change), the hamiltonian being the measure of energy 
> in a system. This has led me to understand energy as a measure of change 
> over time in a physical system. That might be obvious, except I've never 
> heard anybody say it quite like that - with the result that many people 
> tend to reify energy as some kind of physical "thing". The fact that energy 
> and matter are interconvertible has led me to the summary that change 
> across space is matter, change across time is energy. The only problem in 
> this picture is potential energy, which you could simply call "deferred 
> change", but that does beg the question as to how it is deferred. I'm 
> trying to think about this in relation to chemical energy - the potential 
> energy held in chemical bonds. When I studied chemistry I was simply told 
> that certain bonds are more stable and have lower energy than other bonds 
> which are less stable and have higher energy. So energy is released when a 
> molecule reacts with another to form a more stable compound. The reason for 
> and nature of the stability wasn't explained. So I'm wondering, is the 
> "potential energy" in the chemical bond actually a kind of very localised 
> motion, with more motion occurring in high energy bonds than in lower 
> energy ones? In other words, the energy (motion/change) is temporarily 
> contained in the small area of the bond, thus hiding the energy it as it 
> were from the environment? If so, then this form of potential energy is not 
> really different in kind from other types of energy, it's just relatively 
> isolated. If this is valid, perhaps a similar analysis of other forms of 
> potential energy such as gravitational potential might be possible too? Can 
> a physicist/physical chemist perhaps shed light on whether my speculation 
> here regarding chemical energy is valid? 
>

The Hamiltonian is the generator of time development. A quantum wave 
function  ψ(t) is pushed to the time t' > t by the operator exp(-iH(t' - 
t)) so that ψ(t') =  exp(-iH(t' - t))ψ(t).

LC

-- 
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: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[Lawrence Crowell]

With biology the genes that express polypeptides do in a sense control 
things. Biology is not so much about control as it is about commensurate 
networks. We are in a time when aspects of the natural world are often 
compared to technology. For instance with Seth Lloyd we have the idea the 
universe is a computer. The universe has computational aspects to it, but 
it is not really a computer. If the universe is a computer then what is it 
computing? I think the same hold for biology, where we like to make 
comparisons between biological and molecular biological systems with 
nanotechnology, but there are departures. 

Biological systems evolve to survive within some set of resources and 
environmental challenges. Biological organisms that fail to succeed simply 
die, though there are always some lineages that manage to continue and the 
game of evolution goes on. This is not the same as say biological systems 
are "designed" as such. There is a bit of a popular controversy over this. 
IGUS or ETI pushing into space by building ever more complex 
hyper-structures are more in the say of controlling systems. If von Neumann 
probes do migrate into space and throughout a galaxy they probably do so in 
a pretty conservative fashion. In fact over time they would evolve instead 
of performing in a designed manner.

LC

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 11:13:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> *​> ​Even if you have a mole of nanobots doing things, who is keeping 
>> track of them to make sure they are doing what you want? *
>
>
> ​
> You were
> ​ ​
> constructed
> ​ ​
> by a huge number of nanobots (also called proteins) in just 9 months. And 
> those nanobots were themselves constructed by other nanobots using 
> information in DNA. There was no understanding involved in any of this, 
> nobody was keeping
> ​ ​
> track
> ​ ​
> of it all and yet it worked. You are far more complex than a Dyson Sphere 
> so if something like DNA and proteins, which are dumb as dirt, can make 
> something as complex as you I don't see why a super intelligence would be 
> unable to make a simple Dyson Sphere.
>
> * ​> ​In fact this becomes Turing's thesis on the impossibility of a 
>> Universal Turing Machine on steroids.*
>
>
> ​Turing prove there are some functions that a computer can't evaluate and 
> some real numbers (most of them actually) that can't even be approximated. 
> But computers aren't the only thing that has this limitation, humans can't 
> do any of those things either and in fact 
> no physical process has ever been found that can figure out what a Turing 
> Machine can't; and yet enormously complex things still exist in the 
> universe.
>
> And Turing also proved that in general if you want to know what a computer 
> will do next all you can do is watch it and see; and long before Turing it 
> was known that in general you can't know for sure what you are going to do 
> next until you actually do it. ​
>  
>
>
> ​*> ​**even if you have that massive computing system who is keeping 
>> track of the algorithms to make sure it is doing what you want and so 
>> forth.*
>
>
> ​
> Computers will always make mistakes 
> ​and​
>  humans make mistakes too but that doesn't prevent them from getting 
> things done.
> ​ ​
> ​By the way, you indicated you were a fan of t
> he
> ​ 
> Copernican principle
> ​ but now you seem to be saying humans are special after all because they 
> are as smart as things can get, if something is too complex for humans to 
> use it will forever be too complex for anything to use. And I still don't 
> understand what's so complex about a Dyson Sphere. 
> After all, spheres are symmetrical so if you know how to make one small 
> part of it you know how to make the entire thing, now you just need to put 
> in the effort and actually do it. And if you have 6.02*10^23 hands you can 
> complete it in a reasonable amount of time.
>  
>
>> *​> ​Already we are getting some problematic news with self-driving 
>> cars.​ ​Remember a test driver. or in a way un-driver, was killed not long 
>> ago because the algorithm failed to react properly to certain conditions.*
>>
>
> ​That was 2 years ago and since then 2.6 million people were killed by 
> human drivers worldwide. And the incident you refer to didn't happen in a 
> driverless car, the Tesla just had a autopilot, a sort of super duper 
> cruise control, and it was never intended to be used without human 
> oversight, although the "driver" apparently treated it as if it was and was 
> not paying attention and died as a result. True driverless cars have a 
> superb driving record and have never killed anyone, Google's driverless 
> cars have driven 1.8 million real world miles and only had 13 accidents, 
> all of them fender benders and all of them caused by other cars with human 
> drivers.
>  
>
>> ​>* ​*
>> *Complexity explodes enormously and the designers become 

Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[Samiya Illias]

Then how come the Homo sapiens are the rare creatures without any natural 
clothing, unlike almost all other creatures? 
Something to be apprehensive about: 
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-cursed-tree.html 

> On 13-Feb-2018, at 10:06 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> Except it has the same kind of non-functional stuff as chimpanzees, wolves, 
> mice, etc.  have.  So maybe Adam's story is fake news.
> 
> Brent
> 
>> On 2/13/2018 8:33 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>> Or may the entire human genome was functional once, but has been 
>> corrupted... Adam's story is an example: Adam's Attempt to Improve upon 
>> Allah's Creation 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On 2/13/2018 9:13 AM, John Clark wrote:
  
 
> 
 
 ​That is just not true. ​ In the entire human genome there are only 3 
 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, 
 there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to 750 meg.
>>> 
>>> And it is estimated that there are only 22,000 functional genes, 
>>> constituted of 34 million base pairs (only 1% of the human genome).
>>> 
 Just 750 meg, that's about the same amount of information as a old CD disk 
 could hold ​  when they first came out ​ ​ 35 years ago! And the 750 meg 
 isn't even efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous amount of redundancy 
 in the human genome.
>>> 
>>> There's some redundancy, but also lot of just free-rider junk plus stuff 
>>> that may have be useful in an evolutionary sense but does nothing for the 
>>> individual
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 And yet that  tiny ​ amount of information was enough to reshape the 
 surface of a planet. And there is more to come, I think that information 
 could grow and reshape the entire galaxy, if it doesn't stagnate or 
 destroy itself first.
>>> 
>>> Then you have to ask yourself, "What's its motivation?"  You may have 
>>> intended it to build Dyson spheres, but mutation happens.  And what 
>>> mutation will be favored?  The ones that make lots of copies of themselves.
>>> 
>>> 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 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.

-- 
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.

What is Löbianity? What is its relation to self-consciousness?

[Peter Sas]

Hi everybody,

I have a question for you: What is Löbianity? What is its relation to 
self-consciousness?

I know the work of Löb has to do with arithmetical self-reference (as it 
figures in  Gödel's proof for incompleteness).

Obviously, that self-reference is the link with self-consciousness... But 
how do you see that link in particular? Can we see Löbian self-reference as 
happening within a universal turing machine? And would it then prove its 
own incompleteness, its own inability to prove all of mathematics?

And can you recomment me some entry-level books / papers on Löb's theorem 
and his ideas about self-reference in general? 

Greets,
Peter 

-- 
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.