date:20190516

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/11/2019 11:59 PM, smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2019 22:31, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of
consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily
explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can
indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated
consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can
such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?

We don't live in the real world, rather in the virtual world generated
by our brains. Illusions such as optical illusions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTpvDTWurwg

auditory illusions such as McGurk effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

clearly demonstrates this. The virtual representation of the real
world isn't perfect; because we experience the former directly and can
only infer something about the latter indirectly, this means that we
can sometimes experience things that seem to violate the laws of physics.

Which in turn means we do access the real world, otherwise we wouldn't
know that some impressions are illusions. Whether we "live in it" or
not is then a matter of degree. A degree inconsistent with a lot of
woo-woo.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d0d20c2-1735-19a3-49e4-a8bcab98e733%40verizon.net.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > ‘I believe there are 
>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>  
>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>> > 
>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>
>> Lol. 
>>
>>
> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
> number.
>
> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>
>
>
> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical 
> object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to 
> make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
> persistent histories decorum.
>
> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local 
region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one 
sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are 
experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place 
and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the 
electron's quantum numbers.

LC
 

>
>
>
> LC
>  
>
>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>
>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.
>>  
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/da2c3c46-9542-40d8-a384-dd08a40f1ce4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

2019-05-16 Thread smitra


On 11-05-2019 22:31, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of
consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily
explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can
indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated
consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can
such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?


We don't live in the real world, rather in the virtual world generated 
by our brains. Illusions such as optical illusions:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTpvDTWurwg

auditory illusions such as McGurk effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

clearly demonstrates this. The virtual representation of the real world 
isn't perfect; because we experience the former directly and can only 
infer something about the latter indirectly, this means that we can 
sometimes experience things that seem to violate the laws of physics.


Saibal

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/555e3ea7cbd8460f79b795857ea8bd90%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/16/2019 1:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:00 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

This is what I call one form of *consciousness denial*

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/

in that information processing absent actual
/first-class/ entities of qualia (or experiences) can only
produce zombies. One needs information processing operating in a
/material substrate/ where those entities are available to be
combined and manipulated.

You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.

Before that we need to demonstrate that the elbow isn't
consciousness. E.g., it can exhibit reflexes to simuli without
involving the brain.

It's just an example. Let's not get caught up in hairsplitting. So if
you think exhibiting reflexes is the critereon for consciousness,
consider the example of someone who has held their breath for fifteen
minutes.

Brent

Jason

Brent

@philipthrift

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

The question is why does it supervene on the brain and not on
the elbow. What about the brain causes it to "make
experiences"? Most scientists think it is because the brain
does computations, i.e. information processing, which is more
extensive and complex that the elbow does. Which leads to
Bruno's argument that if it is the information processing
that produces mind, then mind can be instantiated by any
sufficiently complex computer+program. Since he believes in
arithmetical realism, and since all possible computations
exist implicitly in arithmetic, it follows that all possible
thoughts already exist in arithmetic and we can explain
reality as some particular subset of those thoughts.

Brent

On 5/16/2019 12:54 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

mind supervenes on the brain
Bruce

The heart* pumps blood.
The brain pumps experiences.

The brain is an experience pump!

* Actually it's more complex: blood cells are made in bone
marrow signaled by the kidneys and recycled by the spleen.
Do it's kidneys+marrow+spleen+heart that make and pump
blood. The brain makes and pumps experiences.

@philipthrift

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f7ff9f1-a20f-4bc3-baee-a9f01dfb1a62%40googlegroups.com

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e0808a5-ea3c-2de0-defd-381fe843afa1%40verizon.net

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjxKVJuJnEaq27MXooHt3conDuuvo3cZ0jdkJathL9hWg%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79eb3923-0291-508d-b9d3-828d9dfdbc0f%40verizon.net.

Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-16 Thread John Clark

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:48 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> Information processing absent actual first-class entities of qualia (or
> experiences) can only produce zombies. One needs information processing
> operating in a material substrate where those entities are available to be
> combined and manipulated.*

So something can behave intelligently but if it is lacking "f*irst-class
entities of qualia*" it can only be a intelligent zombie. But "*first-class
qualia*" sounds like  consciousness to me, so you're basically saying only
conscious things can be conscious. A tautology has the virtue of always being
true but it involves a unnecessary non-required pointless repetition and
reiteration of words where you end up at the exact same place you started
with. And that is typical of all consciousness theories.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv10Uh2KLwA7W0ru3bFkyY_jyOC9x%2BOa3eCbV7qhM_9uEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread John Clark

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 4:54 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> we need to demonstrate that the elbow isn't consciousness.  E.g., it can
> exhibit reflexes to simuli without involving the brain.*


How would that prove anything? What proof is there that a reflexe or any
other observable behavior has anything to do with consciousness? There is
none. The hard fact is you must forget about proof and just assume there is
a link between intelligent behavior and consciousness because the only
alternative is solipsism.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2MEOXHR-rGFCsLtTNxpdGxDmdhsgrEMEd_yxaU-HJLKg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread John Clark

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:00 AM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

* > You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.*
>

According to my consciousness theory my elbow is the seat of my
consciousness, specifically my left elbow. I maintain that one armed men
are just intelligent zombies, and I also maintain that my theory is just as
good (or bad) as every other consciousness theory.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2rnNMHo9xN6jaxsKmirfaJAd-fx%3DrhtopX-SbdNdKPPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/16/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/15/2019 8:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


Nothing is wrong, except that you are using a different
notion of "real". Integers are invented by humans, even
though there is intersubjective agreement about them.



I would say we invented theories (axioms) to study them, but that
the properties of integers were always there waiting to be
discovered. Prove me wrong.


Were there always infinitely many of them?


Oh what? Integers? Probably.


Prove you're right.


It predicts things no other theory in science has which fits with our 
observations.


But it doesn't need to be infinite to do that.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6d1ae66-bd37-dd6f-cffc-05287da39829%40verizon.net.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:00 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/16/2019 5:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> This is what I call one form of *consciousness denial*
>
>   https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
>
> in that information processing absent actual *first-class* entities of
> qualia (or experiences) can only produce zombies. One needs information
> processing operating in a *material substrate* where those entities are
> available to be combined and manipulated.
>
>
> You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.
>

Before that we need to demonstrate that the elbow isn't consciousness.
E.g., it can exhibit reflexes to simuli without involving the brain.

Jason



>
> Brent
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> The question is why does it supervene on the brain and not on the elbow.
>> What about the brain causes it to "make experiences"?  Most scientists
>> think it is because the brain does computations, i.e. information
>> processing, which is more extensive and complex that the elbow does.  Which
>> leads to Bruno's argument that if it is the information processing that
>> produces mind, then mind can be instantiated by any sufficiently complex
>> computer+program.  Since he believes in arithmetical realism, and since all
>> possible computations exist implicitly in arithmetic, it follows that all
>> possible thoughts already exist in arithmetic and we can explain reality as
>> some particular subset of those thoughts.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On 5/16/2019 12:54 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> mind supervenes on the brain
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>> The heart* pumps blood.
>> The brain pumps experiences.
>>
>> The brain is an experience pump!
>>
>> * Actually it's more complex: blood cells are made in bone marrow
>> signaled by the kidneys and recycled by the spleen. Do it's
>> kidneys+marrow+spleen+heart that make and pump blood. The brain makes and
>> pumps experiences.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f7ff9f1-a20f-4bc3-baee-a9f01dfb1a62%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e0808a5-ea3c-2de0-defd-381fe843afa1%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjxKVJuJnEaq27MXooHt3conDuuvo3cZ0jdkJathL9hWg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-16 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/15/2019 8:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Nothing is wrong, except that you are using a different notion of "real".
>> Integers are invented by humans, even though there is intersubjective
>> agreement about them.
>>
>
>
> I would say we invented theories (axioms) to study them, but that the
> properties of integers were always there waiting to be discovered. Prove me
> wrong.
>
>
> Were there always infinitely many of them?
>

Oh what? Integers? Probably.


>
> Prove you're right.
>

It predicts things no other theory in science has which fits with our
observations.

Jason



>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ad589d2-17f7-e2c9-c464-36d95c81d985%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgn8RGreKzohaR-atVeRXLr81hVcmFxcsE1KCG-kNt7NQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-16 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:20 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/15/2019 7:39 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:29 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/14/2019 9:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> What is truth? (Pontus Pilate). Arithmetical statements are true if they
>>> are theorems derived from the axioms.
>>>
>>
>> This is false. In every consistent system of axioms there are statements
>> that are true but cannot be derived from the axioms.
>>
>>
>> That's not true. There are axiomatic systems that are complete.
>>
>
>
> You are right, but in the above context we were speaking of arithmetical
> statements, for which my statement is correct.
>
>
>>
>> In other words truth =/= proof, truth is always greater that what can be
>> proved.
>>
>>
>> That's because you have recourse to an idea of "true" that is outside of
>> logical inference...such as "empirically true".
>>
>
> Even entirely within the system there's such statements that you know are
> true but not provable.
>
>
> HOW do you know they are true?  Because they say they are not provable?
>
> Brent
>


That's the trick Godel used to constructively build such statements, yes.

Jason

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUi6jbm4Q2WuqKabQw%3D6W4Hs%2Bj12swm66GFVLLtzePbgBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Eddington wrote a book "Fundamental Theory" which was apparently never
quite finished. I only know of it because there's a book I have by
Higman "Applied Group Theoretic and Matrix Methods" that devotes the
last chapter to a review of Eddington's "Quantum Relativity" in which he
says he gives a shortened version of Eddington's argument. It's 41
pages long. Higman's book is out of print, but cheap used copies are
available.

Brent

On 5/16/2019 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of
particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.

Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea
where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?

This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a
coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that
exists.

Then how to verify this?

Bruno

To show it more vividly, he has written this result in full.

Evgenii

Am 14.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Bruno Marchal:

On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

‘I believe there are
15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’

Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The
Physical Universe.

Lol.
I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since
1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)
Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ab07e7-9893-e1e2-6851-c34b4bb40244%40verizon.net.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


Am 16.05.2019 um 19:05 schrieb Bruno Marchal:



On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:

This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of 
particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.


Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea 
where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?

This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a 
coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that 
exists.

Then how to verify this?

Bruno


I have not read the Eddington book so I cannot explain on how he came to 
this result. Basically he thought that mind somehow is related to the 
Universe and God. Some kind of mystics.


My source of information is

Helge Kragh, Higher Speculations, Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions 
in Physics and Cosmology, 2011. Chapter 4, Rational Cosmologies.



Evgenii

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/df37a179-f8cb-a649-506f-7fed1bdb7cdf%40rudnyi.ru.

Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-16 Thread Philip Thrift

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/16/2019 6:29 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>  
>
> The elbow (the matter that is halfway down your arm between your shoulder 
> and hand) could have proto-consciousness (or a proto-experientiality, as 
> some say): 
>
>   https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#PanpVersPanp
>
> But the elbow will not have full consciousness (first-person) because* it 
> cannot do information processing* (at the level of the brain with all its 
> neural connectivity).
>
> *High-level (and higher-order) information processing is necessary, but 
> not sufficient for consciousness.*
>
> That is all of panpsychism in a nutshell.
>
>
> But then "panpyschism" does no work.  It's just a hypothetical property of 
> matter that says if some matter does information processing then that 
> matter is conscious, otherwise it's not.  But that's already what 
> materialists thought.
>
> Brent
>

This was prefaced by:

Information processing absent actual *first-class* entities of *qualia* (or 
experiences) can only produce zombies. One needs information processing 
operating in a *material substrate* where those entities are available to 
be combined and manipulated.

There is information processing in an elbow, but that information 
processing is not at the level of information processing in the brain.

But information processing in the brain, while at the level it needs to be 
for consciousness, needs to be operating in that substrate where the 
experiential entities are available to be combined and manipulated.

@philipthift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75512324-b60f-493d-b944-f9bda42b06f9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 14 May 2019, at 22:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/14/2019 9:10 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:46 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/13/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> > But then what is arithmetical truth? We have no label for it. It 
>> > cannot be derived from or defined by labels.
>> 
>> And it depends on the model. 
>> 
>> Saying truth depends on the model is like saying facts about something 
>> depend on what you are talking about.
>> When I said arithmetical truth, it should be clear the model is arithmetic, 
>> and so arithmetical truth are the facts concerning arithmetic.
> 
> But which arithmetic?  There is more than one model of Peano's axioms for 
> example. 

The standard model. It is the intersection of all models. 

We cannot define the “real”, or “standard” natural number in first order logic, 
but we can do it in second order arithmetic, or in set theory, etc.

The non standard natural numbers are very weird, their addition and 
multiplication are not computable.  The only role they could “logically” play 
is a role of oracle, but to invoke them is again introducing non computable 
infinities, for what?

The whole of science assume the standard number. The non standard numbers are 
like the limit of analysis, and indeed can be used to reintroduce the 
infinitesimal in analysis, but I think that the arithmetical epsilon-delat 
definition is better. 

> But , you say, I mean the natural numbers model of arithmetic...but the 
> natural numbers are something hypothesized from empirical observation.

In the Aristotelian theology. But eventually this one is inconsistent with 
Digital Mechanism, which needs to explain the persistence of the hallucination 
from the logic of the dreams of the universal numbers.

> 
>>  
>> Which is why it's undefinable within the 
>> system. 
>> 
>> Could you clarify this point?
> 
> There is more than one model of PA and "true" is relative to the model.

But all standard natural numbers are standard in all models. What you prove in 
PA is true in all models. The machines behave the same, and think the same in 
all model of RA, PA (and ZF, ZFC, ZFC+Ind, etc.).

The notion of natural numbers is the simplest and clearest notion in the whole 
of science. It is bad philosophy to introduce doubt on 2+2=4. That would put 
Mechanism in jeopardy, but that would put all theories in jeopardy, with some 
exception in the non Turing universal small realities.

>>  
>> And also why it's not the same as the "true" in "It is true 
>> that snow is white."
>> 
>> 
>> How is it different?
> 
> Snow is defined ostensively, as are the natural numbers.

No. The natural numbers are defined by simple axioms and rules. I have given 
their definition in the combinators languages, and very often directly in 
predicate calculus.

Our familiarity with comes from some use we lake of them with respect to 
distinguishable object, but to define the natural number by referring to a 
physical world or to human psychology is typically not how the mathematicians 
operates. 

Our intuition of the natural numbers is already as complex to explain as to 
explain consciousness. But we do have that intuition, like most animals, and 
like all Löbian Turing universal machine, actually.

>   But what mathematicians (like Goedel) prove theorems about is the axiomatic 
> system.  That's why Bruno makes the point that provability is well defined 
> but truth isn't  (in mathematics).

Not really. The mathematical logician does define the arithmetical truth. Model 
theoryis developed in set theory. The truth that Bruno and Brent cannot define 
is not the arithmetical truth, but the bruno-truth and the Brent-truth,  
assuming that we have similar complexity. 

Now with mechanism we cannot really define the arithmetical truth, but that 
reflect only that we have to use a richer theory than arithmetic to define it, 
and mathematician do use much richer theories, all the time, with a level of 
confidence which is common and plausibly deserve on some large portion of set 
theory. Above, you need God, which is probably an abstract and ultimate form of 
your definition per-ostension, except that with mechanism, the ostension is not 
on the physical universe, but on the arithmetical reality we look inward, 
notably by doing math.

Bruno 

> 
> Brent
>> 
>> Jason 
>> -- 
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgQZz3nO%2BOKaiWZrtmbVivC8E_0BtwfjhW7hm9PjRoZ_Q%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>>

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> 
> This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of 
> particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256. 

Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea 
where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?

This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a 
coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that 
exists.

Then how to verify this?

Bruno



> To show it more vividly, he has written this result in full.
> 
> Evgenii
> 
> Am 14.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>>> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> ‘I believe there are 
>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>>  protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>>> 
>>> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: 
>>> Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The 
>>> Physical Universe.
>> Lol.
>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
>> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)
>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39a59c3a-e560-1967-7571-5d44741183f9%40rudnyi.ru.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4474728D-2086-40BE-ADBC-6289FB52607F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi > 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > ‘I believe there are 
> > 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
> >  protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
> > 
> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: 
> > Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The 
> > Physical Universe. 
> 
> Lol. 
> 
> 
> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
> number.
> 
> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.


That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical object, 
it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical transformation. 
The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to make the atoms 
dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and persistent histories 
decorum.

I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.

Bruno




> 
> LC
>  
> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
> 
> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
> 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru
> >  
> > .
> >  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E4567ED4-1B0E-49A6-B3A2-5F6A3AD405E1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/16/2019 6:29 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:


You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.

Brent



The elbow (the matter that is halfway down your arm between your 
shoulder and hand) could have proto-consciousness (or a 
proto-experientiality, as some say):


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#PanpVersPanp

But the elbow will not have full consciousness (first-person) 
because* it cannot do information processing* (at the level of the 
brain with all its neural connectivity).


*High-level (and higher-order) information processing is necessary, 
but not sufficient for consciousness.*


That is all of panpsychism in a nutshell.


But then "panpyschism" does no work.  It's just a hypothetical property 
of matter that says if some matter does information processing then that 
matter is conscious, otherwise it's not.  But that's already what 
materialists thought.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d30bbec-0026-6038-9e05-5e4f96b47d7b%40verizon.net.

Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-16 Thread Philip Thrift


On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:00:42 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/16/2019 5:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> This is what I call one form of *consciousness denial*
>
>   https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
>
> in that information processing absent actual *first-class* entities of 
> qualia (or experiences) can only produce zombies. One needs information 
> processing operating in a *material substrate* where those entities are 
> available to be combined and manipulated.
>
>
> You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.
>
> Brent
>

 

The elbow (the matter that is halfway down your arm between your shoulder 
and hand) could have proto-consciousness (or a proto-experientiality, as 
some say): 

  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#PanpVersPanp

But the elbow will not have full consciousness (first-person) because* it 
cannot do information processing* (at the level of the brain with all its 
neural connectivity).

*High-level (and higher-order) information processing is necessary, but not 
sufficient for consciousness.*

That is all of panpsychism in a nutshell.

(I've posted the research of Hedda Hassel Mørch here several times now. 
This is what she talks about.)

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2902c589-8ba3-4765-96e2-5943794c7e5b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/16/2019 5:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

This is what I call one form of *consciousness denial*

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/

in that information processing absent actual /first-class/ entities of
qualia (or experiences) can only produce zombies. One needs
information processing operating in a /material substrate/ where those
entities are available to be combined and manipulated.

You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.

Brent

@philipthrift

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

The question is why does it supervene on the brain and not on the
elbow. What about the brain causes it to "make experiences"?
Most scientists think it is because the brain does computations,
i.e. information processing, which is more extensive and complex
that the elbow does. Which leads to Bruno's argument that if it
is the information processing that produces mind, then mind can be
instantiated by any sufficiently complex computer+program. Since
he believes in arithmetical realism, and since all possible
computations exist implicitly in arithmetic, it follows that all
possible thoughts already exist in arithmetic and we can explain
reality as some particular subset of those thoughts.

Brent

On 5/16/2019 12:54 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

mind supervenes on the brain
Bruce

The heart* pumps blood.
The brain pumps experiences.

The brain is an experience pump!

* Actually it's more complex: blood cells are made in bone marrow
signaled by the kidneys and recycled by the spleen. Do it's
kidneys+marrow+spleen+heart that make and pump blood. The brain
makes and pumps experiences.

@philipthrift

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f7ff9f1-a20f-4bc3-baee-a9f01dfb1a62%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e0808a5-ea3c-2de0-defd-381fe843afa1%40verizon.net.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread Philip Thrift



This is what I call one form of *consciousness denial*

  https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/

in that information processing absent actual *first-class* entities of 
qualia (or experiences) can only produce zombies. One needs information 
processing operating in a *material substrate* where those entities are 
available to be combined and manipulated.

@philipthrift

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> The question is why does it supervene on the brain and not on the elbow.  
> What about the brain causes it to "make experiences"?  Most scientists 
> think it is because the brain does computations, i.e. information 
> processing, which is more extensive and complex that the elbow does.  Which 
> leads to Bruno's argument that if it is the information processing that 
> produces mind, then mind can be instantiated by any sufficiently complex 
> computer+program.  Since he believes in arithmetical realism, and since all 
> possible computations exist implicitly in arithmetic, it follows that all 
> possible thoughts already exist in arithmetic and we can explain reality as 
> some particular subset of those thoughts.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 5/16/2019 12:54 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> mind supervenes on the brain
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> The heart* pumps blood.
> The brain pumps experiences.
>
> The brain is an experience pump!
>
> * Actually it's more complex: blood cells are made in bone marrow signaled 
> by the kidneys and recycled by the spleen. Do it's 
> kidneys+marrow+spleen+heart that make and pump blood. The brain makes and 
> pumps experiences.
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f7ff9f1-a20f-4bc3-baee-a9f01dfb1a62%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/16/2019 4:48 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno
Marchal wrote:

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are

15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of
electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of
Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI,
The Physical Universe.

Lol.

The number is curiously not that different from the
currently understood number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the
universe. All these electrons we see are just the same
electron weaving through space and time.

I guess this concerns the observable universe,
which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and
“Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the
apparent joke?

Bruno

The number of electrons and protons stays the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle
and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples
include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an
antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair production
often refers specifically to a photon creating an
electron–positron pair near a nucleus.

In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold
target was used to generate positron–electron pairs in
large numbers.

That "there is only one electron in the universe. All
these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving
through space and time" would explain telepathy and
precognition.

@philipthrift

I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin
Visan showed up hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the
reports of moon landings are no more credible than claims of
the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. There is no
scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various
tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has
ever been found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.

But, in order:

1. Precognition.
2. Telepathy.
3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked.
4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons
we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've
ever seen).
3 is crazy.
But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea
can't really say the others are "crazy", can they?

@philipthrift

Well ... if there is only one electron that weaves across space and
time to create this multifold appearance this electron crosses
horizons. That means information other than quantum numbers for
electrons, spin, charge, isospin and mass, does not traverse all of
space and time. This means that while the electrons in my body or
brain may be really manifestations of the same electron defining those
in other brains that reading thoughts is not possible this way. Think
about it, if this is right then this one electron manifests itself
with electrons in white dwarf stars. So does it make any sense that we
might have some psychic connection to the degenerate electron pressure
in white dwarf stars? Of course not, the idea is preposterous.

The problem with #4 is there are not equal numbers of electrons and
positrons. But there are some positrons. There aren't any of #1 and #2.

Brent

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Oh good. Then let's play. I've got plenty of sets of four photos. I'll
arrange four in a line and tell Howard which one I'm thinking of, and
you can tell him which one I'm thinking of using your obviously real
telepathy and we'll see if you can do better than chance. OK?

Brent

On 5/16/2019 3:39 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
In a test in which people are asked to "guess" 1 in 4 pictures, the
results are 32% instead of 25%. Telepathy is not only real, but is
obviously real. Sorry mate, you need to change your beliefs.

On Thursday, 16 May 2019 13:26:57 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:

You have a belief that precognition and telepathy/psychic
phenomena are real - if one looks, using the scientific method,
as Randi did, it is impossible to find anyone who can actually
perform under controlled conditions that the claimant themselves
sets as conditions of a test (even if the test is statistical with
the aim of getting a higher score than random - like getting a
60-40 on predicting the flipping of coins, to use a terrible
example!).

The total failure of precognition hotlines to show precognition
over a couple decades - is quite strong evidence. One must make
sure that one uses hard evidence, not hear-say or testimonials.
Cheers! Howard

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/22ac6905-4c56-49b7-9a77-727f70eaa45c%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd766ea1-3776-5a50-7af5-de3d4e807ca0%40verizon.net.

Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/16/2019 3:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 May 2019, at 20:48, Philip Thrift > wrote:




On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:23:22 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 11 May 2019, at 08:13, Philip Thrift > wrote:



https://aeon.co/ideas/how-the-dualism-of-descartes-ruined-our-mental-health


...
Nature was thereby drained of her inner life, rendered a deaf
and blind apparatus of indifferent and value-free law, and
humankind was faced with a world of inanimate, meaningless
matter, upon which it projected its psyche – its aliveness,
meaning and purpose – only in fantasy.
...
The bifurcation of mind and nature was at the root of
immeasurable secular progress –  medical and technological
advance, the rise of individual rights and social justice, to
name just a few. It also protected us all from being bound up in
the inherent uncertainty and flux of nature. It gave us a
certain omnipotence – just as it gave science empirical control
over nature – and most of us readily accept, and willingly
spend, the inheritance bequeathed by it, and rightly so.

In the face of an indifferent and unresponsive world that
neglects to render our experience meaningful outside of our own
minds  –  for nature-as-mechanism is powerless to do this  –



Yes, nature does not even exist as mechanism, so the notion of
“nature-as-mechanism” is globally non sensical, yet locally, it
works for person supported by highly probable computations, but
nature becomes a projection, like in a dream.





 our minds have been left fixated on empty representations of a
world that was once its source and being.


That is due to the reductionist conception of machine and number.
Today, we can defeat it, mathematically.





All we have, if we are lucky to have them, are therapists and
parents who try to take on what is, in reality, and given the
magnitude of the loss, an impossible task.


The loss is due to the separation of theology from science, and
the impeaching of the fundamental questioning for a long period.
That has led to the separation of human sciences and exact
science, making them both into pseudo-metaphysics and
pseudo-religion. Then we see only the “superficial” technologies,
without understanding of what they implies. To separate science
and theologies is a con artist trick to steal your money, and in
passing, your soul.

When “equated” with the machine, the negative pessimist will say,
“oh damned I am only a machine”, but the positive optimistic will
say, “nice, so machine can be as nice as I am”.

The interesting thing is only that this can be tested. Mechanism
has observable consequences.

Bruno






...

"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something
distinct from the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?”
-- Richard Rorty
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html








The problem (aligning with the above article by psychotherapist James 
Barnes [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-barnes-msc-ma-90766b159/ ]) is that 
there is no (A) mind *and* the body (or matter), there are (B) 
experiences *of* the body (matter).


But that is still a local description. In the “big picture”, the 
notion of “matter” (primitive matter, ontological matter, 
needed-to-be-assumed matter) makes no sense (assuming mechanism).


Yes, we can criticise the terming “mind & body”, which is dualistic.

But to say that there are experience of the body, is as much 
criticisable. How could a body have experience?


By processing information.

Only a mind, a person, can have experiences. And matter is one of 
those experience.


That's looking at it backwards.  It's assuming that a person is 
something separable from the experiences; an error foisted on us by the 
grammar of Indo-european language.  In the Navajo language one would 
just say "There is experiencing" without implicitly postulating a 
subject.  Sure, matter is an inference from experience.  Physics is an 
empirical science.  Empirical observation is that only bodies report and 
behave as if they are having experiences and only if their brains have a 
certain level of electrochemical activity.









Speaking in the terminology of (A) has harmed mental health.


Any inadequate belief is the source of some suffering, soon or late.




(Now one can be an experience-monist psychotherapist - everything is 
experience - but then the therapist has to explain to the patient why 
they need a particular drug prescription.)


Yes, but the patient does not need the detailed explanation. A 
medication and a

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:18:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I heard there are a couple of people that claim they've been on the Moon. 
> I asked them to prove it to me by going again, but they said they cannot do 
> it. What do you think ? Is this anecdote true ?
>

When I was a kid I was big on the moon landing. We went on a vacation to 
Florida and saw one of the Saturn V rockets lift off. The thing is that if 
these were faked, then NASA built a 370 foot tall rocket that roared off 
the launch pad only to ditch the thing in the ocean or some such event and 
then do a studio enactment. If NASA were to build such a machine, why fake 
it? --- they might as well have gone all the way. 

For a 5 years in the 90s I was employed in spacecraft navigation. I worked 
the mechanics on how to get a spacecraft to some orbit in space, whether 
around Earth or out into the solar system, or to reach some other planetary 
body. I timed my visits to the Kennedy Space Center to watch shuttle 
launches, one landing and some Delta launches. This stuff is not faked. 
There is in fact a visitor center where an unused Saturn V rocket is 
displayed. 

The idea that moon landings are faked is in line with other historical 
denials, such as holocaust denial or that black slaves in the south really 
enjoyed their status and so forth. Conspiracy ideas and nonsense about 
alt-history or alt-science such as creationism (even flat earth stuff is 
getting popular) are growing in decibel volume these days. It is a sign the 
minds of people, particularly Americans, are being rubbished up.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/abdb9978-596d-4357-921c-b6318fc65ce2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

The question is why does it supervene on the brain and not on the
elbow. What about the brain causes it to "make experiences"? Most
scientists think it is because the brain does computations, i.e.
information processing, which is more extensive and complex that the
elbow does. Which leads to Bruno's argument that if it is the
information processing that produces mind, then mind can be instantiated
by any sufficiently complex computer+program. Since he believes in
arithmetical realism, and since all possible computations exist
implicitly in arithmetic, it follows that all possible thoughts already
exist in arithmetic and we can explain reality as some particular subset
of those thoughts.

Brent

On 5/16/2019 12:54 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

mind supervenes on the brain
Bruce

The heart* pumps blood.
The brain pumps experiences.

The brain is an experience pump!

* Actually it's more complex: blood cells are made in bone marrow
signaled by the kidneys and recycled by the spleen. Do it's
kidneys+marrow+spleen+heart that make and pump blood. The brain makes
and pumps experiences.

@philipthrift
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f606f6e4-6995-46d9-a579-ca89b579a541%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/57434bcc-d0e6-ccc5-fa43-8b473d5ee240%40verizon.net.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
> > 
> > ‘I believe there are 
> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>  
> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
> > 
> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the 
> Chapter 
> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>
> Lol. 
>
>
 The number is curiously not that different from the currently 
 understood number.

 To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
 these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space 
 and 
 time.

 LC
  

> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>
> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> \


>>>
>>> The number of electrons and protons stays the same?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>>>
>>> Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its 
>>> antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron 
>>> and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair 
>>> production often refers specifically to a photon creating an 
>>> electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 
>>>
>>> In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was 
>>> used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.
>>>
>>>  
>>> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons 
>>> we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
>>> explain telepathy and precognition.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed 
>> up hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no 
>> more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. 
>> There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various 
>> tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been 
>> found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
> But, in order:
>
> 1. Precognition.
> 2. Telepathy.
> 3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked.
> 4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see 
> are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>
> The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've ever seen). 
> 3 is crazy.
> But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea can't 
> really say the others are "crazy", can they?
>
> @philipthrift
>

Well ... if there is only one electron that weaves across space and time to 
create this multifold appearance this electron crosses horizons. That means 
information other than quantum numbers for electrons, spin, charge, isospin 
and mass, does not traverse all of space and time. This means that while 
the electrons in my body or brain may be really manifestations of the same 
electron defining those in other brains that reading thoughts is not 
possible this way. Think about it, if this is right then this one electron 
manifests itself with electrons in white dwarf stars. So does it make any 
sense that we might have some psychic connection to the degenerate electron 
pressure in white dwarf stars? Of course not, the idea is preposterous.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/076704e5-abd2-4381-a5ca-f183032f282f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-16 Thread PGC



On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:45:43 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 May 2019, at 01:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/13/2019 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> 3) Or maybe it's "what the brain does", as many physicalists like to say. 
> My body as mass, because the atoms that make up my body amount to that 
> mass. What amounts to my consciousness? What are the building blocks? There 
> is no accounting, there is no description in yours or van Neumann's sense.
>
>
> But there are models that work.  That was my point in citing AI projects 
> like Watson and AlphaGO.  The building blocks are perception, information 
> processing, values, and action.  You say "there is no accounting" but 
> that's because you're using "accounting" as a synonym for "explain".  The 
> accounting in scientific theory is in terms of a model that works. 
>
>
> With “model” in the logical sense of “theory”. OK.
>
>
>
> You're demanding of a theory of consciousness that will do for 
> consciousness what general relativity* does not do* for the metric or for 
> the stress-energy tensor, what Darwin* did not do* for reproduction with 
> variation.  Maybe someday Bruno's theory will yield some interesting 
> prediction (of the future), but until then it's a theory doesn't do any 
> work.
>
>
> It does. Once you are interested in consciousness, it does work, 
>

Not for yours truly. Your very frequent insistence on "fit" merely concedes 
a lack of evidence to show that indeed everything you claim, can be mined 
from arithmetical self-reference. 
 

> and it explains also the existence of a theological trap, and how to not 
> fall in it, and this has been confirmed when you look at the history and 
> compare the platonician period and the Aristotelian. It is really the 
> difference between peace and war, prosperity and poverty. 
>

So now, if we're skeptical of your theory, we opt for war and poverty? Show 
us the money! Bring us world peace!
 

>
> What you mean, is that it does not work as well as current physical 
> theories, but even this is false, in the sense that physics works only by 
> assuming an identity thesis which is, let us say, non intelligible, pure 
> magic.
>

It's as magic as the identity you assume when flooding this list with 
another set of responses. 
 

> In that sense, mechanism works much better than physics today. And with 
> mechanism, physics does work only by putting the mind under the rug, that 
> is denying that when we do a physical experience, at some point we use of 
> first person experience, if only to note where is the needle.
>

Some people are known to have handled needles without assuming mechanism. 
Some managed to not impoverish themselves or start wars in the process. 
 

>
> So what you mean, is that Mechanism is not as efficacious than physical 
> theories, FAPP. And that is true, but that is equivalent with saying 
> quantum mechanics is to reject in everyday life, because it is easier to 
> make a pizza using elementary classical physics that using Schroedinger 
> equation.
>

No, it just means that when we make a pizza a certain size with one choice 
of topping, that the pizza will not change in size. We do this 
automatically. And if the size or the toping does change, we return the 
pizza, it's associated theories, and ask for our money back! Everybody 
would. Without QM and without mechanism. Imagine that. 
 

>
> Physics is the right tool for doing prediction, but to explain why it 
> works, without denying the conscious experience, we need serious 
> metaphysics.
>
>
Of which you are the only supplier in the world right? Now you need to 
cover the blasphemies here with another thousand "responses". When I hear 
"serious" applied to metaphysics, I feel good.
 

>
>
> So far it doesn't even account for the effect of holding your breathe too 
> long or ingesting LSD. 
>
>
> How do you know that? It does this rather well.
>
>
That was a nice trap, and you waltz right into it as the expert of 
theological traps.
 

>
>
>   The physical model that says consciousness is the brain processing 
> information by neuron's firing at synapses...a very successful model.
>
>
> But consciousness is not neural firing. You cannot identify a first person 
> event with third person event, unless you make them both into very special 
> sort of infinities.
>
>
>
>   But the mysterians of consciousness want to pooh-pooh that because it 
> doesn't talk about how their consciousness "feels".  But neither does 
> Bruno's .
>
>
> No, that is wrong. You need to study a bit more. The fact that G*proves 
> all modes of self)ferefence equivalent, but that the machine cannot see 
> this explains all the discourse on consciousness, and its relation with 
> matter. Ask any question on this, but you might revised a bit my papers.
>

Lol, the aesthetics department of mechanism? Let's take a guess "We don't 
know?" It is there or it isn't. If

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread howardmarks

Sorry mate, if the issue is about "beliefs" rather than reality, then
you are making it a believing game. Truth is not a believing game. It's
not about believing whether telepathy is real - it is about impartially
testing claimants under controlled conditions. You are treating your
belief in telepathy the same as a Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu treats
their belief in their deity.

Yeah, if one does your picture test under uncontrolled conditions, or
only a few times, one may obtain such a score as 32. N, the number of
times such a test is repeated is very important to eliminate chance. (a
coin flip can easily get "heads" three times in a row!) But the content
of the pictures must be just as impartial/random to the individual being
tested as a random number, otherwise the test is not random.

I was honored to be present one time when a few people were "tested" by
Randi's team in Florida. Totally impartial. The claimants, with Randi's
people, decided what constituted a demonstration of a psychic
capability, with the main emphasis to keep the testing fair, both to the
claimant and adhering to the scientific method. Unfortunately, the
claimants, when they couldn't perform, most of the time believed the
test was unfair. even though Randi's people "bent over backwards" to
assure fairness.

Cheers! Howard

On 5/16/2019 5:39 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
In a test in which people are asked to "guess" 1 in 4 pictures, the
results are 32% instead of 25%. Telepathy is not only real, but is
obviously real. Sorry mate, you need to change your beliefs.

On Thursday, 16 May 2019 13:26:57 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/22ac6905-4c56-49b7-9a77-727f70eaa45c%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95004b34-40db-99b4-7387-5ef6515f1828%40doitnow.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

In a test in which people are asked to "guess" 1 in 4 pictures, the results 
are 32% instead of 25%. Telepathy is not only real, but is obviously real. 
Sorry mate, you need to change your beliefs.

On Thursday, 16 May 2019 13:26:57 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>
> You have a belief that precognition and telepathy/psychic phenomena are 
> real -  if one looks, using the scientific method, as Randi did, it is 
> impossible to find anyone who can actually perform under controlled 
> conditions that the claimant themselves sets as conditions of a test (even 
> if the test is statistical with the aim of getting a higher score than 
> random - like getting a 60-40 on predicting the flipping of coins, to use a 
> terrible example!).
>
> The total failure of precognition hotlines to show precognition over a 
> couple decades - is quite strong evidence. One must make sure that one uses 
> hard evidence, not hear-say or testimonials.
> Cheers! Howard
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/22ac6905-4c56-49b7-9a77-727f70eaa45c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread howardmarks

You have a belief that precognition and telepathy/psychic phenomena are
real - if one looks, using the scientific method, as Randi did, it is
impossible to find anyone who can actually perform under controlled
conditions that the claimant themselves sets as conditions of a test
(even if the test is statistical with the aim of getting a higher score
than random - like getting a 60-40 on predicting the flipping of coins,
to use a terrible example!).

The total failure of precognition hotlines to show precognition over a
couple decades - is quite strong evidence. One must make sure that one
uses hard evidence, not hear-say or testimonials.

Cheers! Howard

On 5/16/2019 5:13 AM, howardmarks wrote:
In fact, sir, I personally know Randi, having met him at events and by
telephone. He is totally NOT a charlatan. He won the MacArthur Prize
for his tireless work on exposing charlatans such as Uri Geller
(MacArthur Prize usually given to prospective young science students,
Randi received it in his 50's), was an amateur astronomer early in his
life, and has a great knowledge of the scientific method. No, he
doesn't have a degree in the sciences. Yes, he had many advisors who
were/are impeccable scientists and professionals. Sorry, you are wrong
about Randi.

Cheers! Howard

On 5/16/2019 2:44 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Randi is a charlatan. He (and the people the cite him) has no
understanding whatsoever about how science works. He wants from
people to do instant magic. But that's not how science works. Even
the CERN scientists are making billions of collisions in order to
obtain 1 Higgs boson. If it were for Randi, he would never awarded
any Nobel prize for the Higgs discovery, because it was not a
shocking amazing soap opera performance. Lots of people have
demonstrated to this charlatan telepathy and precognition, but he
refused to acknowledge them, because they were not straight out
hollywood display.

On Thursday, 16 May 2019 05:03:54 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:

There have been a number of "precognition hotlines" on the
internet in the past, with thousands or millions of hits - _but
their "batting average" is flat ZERO_. One such website is
http://thepremonitions.com .
James Randi, now retired (randi.org), had a million dollar
challenge for any type of paranormal and/or psychic phenomena
(such as telepathy, etc.), out for 25 years - only condition on
getting the money (or giving it to one's favorite charity) was to
actually PERFORM. Many many people said they could perform, but,
under impartial conditions (even with only cameras as observers
if that was the condition) = _their batting average was also ZERO_.
But, hey, belief has no place in phenomena, unless one is
studying why people believe things.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3853aaa1-a536-4394-b927-1fc3f051cdc1%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e2cbc997-3988-81b8-4466-71ed5293c62f%40doitnow.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/32173fe6-8c72-65bc-468a-c2f538571b26%40doitnow.com.

Re: for Cosmin

2019-05-16 Thread Philip Thrift



On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 May 2019, at 20:45, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:24:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 May 2019, at 20:24, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 May 2019, at 09:12, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When someone says "consciousness is not a material thing" I think of 
>>> Wile E. Coyote.
>>>
>>> Consciousnesses need something (matter) to hang on to. Consciousnesses 
>>> just don't go floating around willy-nilly. The Coyote finds that out when 
>>> he finds out he is hanging on to nothing, and looks down. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
>>> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
>>> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect 
>>> experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it 
>>> can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>>>
>>> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
>>> incompatible with YD+CT.
>>> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do 
>>> not commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's *De rerum 
>> natur*a [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura ] was a poem 
>> about the philosophy of Epicurus).
>>
>> Aristotle's philosophy is *confused nonsense*, especially when compared 
>> to Epicurus’s.
>>
>>
>> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and 
>> enough precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. 
>> I tend to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, 
>> that is the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
>> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
>> metaphysics). 
>>
>> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
>> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
>> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the 
>> first move.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, 
> the most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about 
> the same time as Aristotle.
>
> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on 
> matter:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle
>
> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
>  thesis, which comes down to us 
> through a passage from Aristotle 
> 's *Metaphysics *. In 
> the work Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
>  about *the nature of 
> all matter  – 
> that the originating principle of nature 
>  was a single material substance 
> *: *water*. Aristotle then 
> proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on his own observations 
> to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced this idea (though 
> Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
>
> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
>  which may shed some light on 
> the ideas of Thales, in *Metaphysics 
> * 983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The 
> passage contains words that were later adopted by science with quite 
> different meanings.)
>
> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes 
> and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, 
> but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle 
> of things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the 
> object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says 
> that it is water.
>
> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and 
> the definition of substance 
> . He asked if an object 
> changes, is it the same or different? In either case how can there be a 
> change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance "is saved", 
> but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the things you 
> "experience").
>
>
> Aristotle conjectured that Thales reached his conclusion by contemplating 
> that the "nourishment of all things is moist and that even the hot is 
> created

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread howardmarks

In fact, sir, I personally know Randi, having met him at events and by
telephone. He is totally NOT a charlatan. He won the MacArthur Prize for
his tireless work on exposing charlatans such as Uri Geller (MacArthur
Prize usually given to prospective young science students, Randi
received it in his 50's), was an amateur astronomer early in his life,
and has a great knowledge of the scientific method. No, he doesn't have
a degree in the sciences. Yes, he had many advisors who were/are
impeccable scientists and professionals. Sorry, you are wrong about Randi.

Cheers! Howard

On 5/16/2019 2:44 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Randi is a charlatan. He (and the people the cite him) has no
understanding whatsoever about how science works. He wants from people
to do instant magic. But that's not how science works. Even the CERN
scientists are making billions of collisions in order to obtain 1
Higgs boson. If it were for Randi, he would never awarded any Nobel
prize for the Higgs discovery, because it was not a shocking amazing
soap opera performance. Lots of people have demonstrated to this
charlatan telepathy and precognition, but he refused to acknowledge
them, because they were not straight out hollywood display.

On Thursday, 16 May 2019 05:03:54 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:

James Randi, now retired (randi.org ), had a
million dollar challenge for any type of paranormal and/or psychic
phenomena (such as telepathy, etc.), out for 25 years - only
condition on getting the money (or giving it to one's favorite
charity) was to actually PERFORM. Many many people said they could
perform, but, under impartial conditions (even with only cameras
as observers if that was the condition) = _their batting average
was also ZERO_.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3853aaa1-a536-4394-b927-1fc3f051cdc1%40googlegroups.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e2cbc997-3988-81b8-4466-71ed5293c62f%40doitnow.com.

Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 13 May 2019, at 15:27, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:21 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
> 
> > At least now you are saying "brain activity" instead of "mind". That's 
> > progress.
> 
> I think you're talking about the "difference" between 6 and half a dozen. 
> Mind is what the brain does and you can't *do* anything without the activity 
> of some thing.

I agree. 

Now, a *digital activity*, like the execution of a program by a universal 
machine, is equivalent with (special) number relations, a bit like the 
dynamical life of a person becomes a static 4 dimensional cone in space time. 

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1jJfh_qThUaHYVAwJhxgBMA9GgJ%2BdUqQHMOkUyv_Nf9g%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2AB06727-D2B9-401E-BE00-FE18652DFB25%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 13 May 2019, at 20:48, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:23:22 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 May 2019, at 08:13, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://aeon.co/ideas/how-the-dualism-of-descartes-ruined-our-mental-health 
>> 
>> ...
>> Nature was thereby drained of her inner life, rendered a deaf and blind 
>> apparatus of indifferent and value-free law, and humankind was faced with a 
>> world of inanimate, meaningless matter, upon which it projected its psyche – 
>> its aliveness, meaning and purpose – only in fantasy.
>> ...
>> The bifurcation of mind and nature was at the root of immeasurable secular 
>> progress –  medical and technological advance, the rise of individual rights 
>> and social justice, to name just a few. It also protected us all from being 
>> bound up in the inherent uncertainty and flux of nature. It gave us a 
>> certain omnipotence – just as it gave science empirical control over nature 
>> – and most of us readily accept, and willingly spend, the inheritance 
>> bequeathed by it, and rightly so.
>> 
>> In the face of an indifferent and unresponsive world that neglects to render 
>> our experience meaningful outside of our own minds  –  for 
>> nature-as-mechanism is powerless to do this  –
> 
> 
> Yes, nature does not even exist as mechanism, so the notion of 
> “nature-as-mechanism” is globally non sensical, yet locally, it works for 
> person supported by highly probable computations, but nature becomes a 
> projection, like in a dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>  our minds have been left fixated on empty representations of a world that 
>> was once its source and being.
> 
> That is due to the reductionist conception of machine and number. Today, we 
> can defeat it, mathematically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> All we have, if we are lucky to have them, are therapists and parents who 
>> try to take on what is, in reality, and given the magnitude of the loss, an 
>> impossible task.
> 
> The loss is due to the separation of theology from science, and the 
> impeaching of the fundamental questioning for a long period. 
> That has led to the separation of human sciences and exact science, making 
> them both into pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-religion. Then we see only the 
> “superficial” technologies, without understanding of what they implies. To 
> separate science and theologies is a con artist trick to steal your money, 
> and in passing, your soul.
> 
> When “equated” with the machine, the negative pessimist will say, “oh damned 
> I am only a machine”, but the positive optimistic will say, “nice, so machine 
> can be as nice as I am”.
> 
> The interesting thing is only that this can be tested. Mechanism has 
> observable consequences.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> ...
>> 
>> "How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the 
>> body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?”
>> -- Richard Rorty
>> https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> The problem (aligning with the above article by psychotherapist James Barnes 
> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-barnes-msc-ma-90766b159/ 
>  ]) is that there 
> is no (A) mind and the body (or matter), there are (B) experiences of the 
> body (matter).

But that is still a local description. In the “big picture”, the notion of 
“matter” (primitive matter, ontological matter, needed-to-be-assumed matter) 
makes no sense (assuming mechanism). 

Yes, we can criticise the terming “mind & body”, which is dualistic.

But to say that there are experience of the body, is as much criticisable. How 
could a body have experience? Only a mind, a person, can have experiences. And 
matter is one of those experience. 




> 
> Speaking in the terminology of (A) has harmed mental health.

Any inadequate belief is the source of some suffering, soon or late.


> 
> (Now one can be an experience-monist psychotherapist - everything is 
> experience - but then the therapist has to explain to the patient why they 
> need a particular drug prescription.)

Yes, but the patient does not need the detailed explanation. A medication and a 
brain does not need to have a material ontology for the medication doing its 
work. Like a chef does not need to know the biology and fundamental physics to 
prepare a Pizza.

Bruno 



> 
> @philipthrift
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web

Re: for Cosmin

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 14 May 2019, at 20:45, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:24:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 13 May 2019, at 20:24, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10 May 2019, at 09:12, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> When someone says "consciousness is not a material thing" I think of Wile 
>>> E. Coyote.
>>> 
>>> Consciousnesses need something (matter) to hang on to. Consciousnesses just 
>>> don't go floating around willy-nilly. The Coyote finds that out when he 
>>> finds out he is hanging on to nothing, and looks down. 
>> 
>> 
>> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
>> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
>> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect experience 
>> has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it can’t be a 
>> boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>> 
>> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
>> incompatible with YD+CT.
>> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do not 
>> commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's De rerum 
>> natura [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura 
>>  ] was a poem about the 
>> philosophy of Epicurus).
>> 
>> Aristotle's philosophy is confused nonsense, especially when compared to 
>> Epicurus’s.
> 
> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and enough 
> precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. I tend 
> to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, that is 
> the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
> metaphysics). 
> 
> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the first 
> move.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, the 
> most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about the 
> same time as Aristotle.
> 
> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on matter:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle 
> 
> 
> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
>  thesis, which comes down to us 
> through a passage from Aristotle 's 
> Metaphysics . In the 
> work Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
>  about the nature of all matter 
>  – that the 
> originating principle of nature  was a 
> single material substance : 
> water. Aristotle then proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on 
> his own observations to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced 
> this idea (though Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
> 
> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
>  which may shed some light on the 
> ideas of Thales, in Metaphysics  
> 983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The passage contains words that were later adopted by 
> science with quite different meanings.)
> 
> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes and 
> into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, but 
> transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle of 
> things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the object 
> being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says that it is 
> water.
> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and the 
> definition of substance . He 
> asked if an object changes, is it the same or different? In either case how 
> can there be a change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance 
> "is saved", but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the things you 
> "experience").
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle conjectured that Thales reached his conclusion by contemplating 
> that the "nourishment of all things is moist and that even the

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread Philip Thrift

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> mind supervenes on the brain
> Bruce
>

The heart* pumps blood.
The brain pumps experiences.

The brain is an experience pump!

* Actually it's more complex: blood cells are made in bone marrow signaled 
by the kidneys and recycled by the spleen. Do it's 
kidneys+marrow+spleen+heart that make and pump blood. The brain makes and 
pumps experiences.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f606f6e4-6995-46d9-a579-ca89b579a541%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-16 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

Randi is a charlatan. He (and the people the cite him) has no understanding 
whatsoever about how science works. He wants from people to do instant 
magic. But that's not how science works. Even the CERN scientists are 
making billions of collisions in order to obtain 1 Higgs boson. If it were 
for Randi, he would never awarded any Nobel prize for the Higgs discovery, 
because it was not a shocking amazing soap opera performance. Lots of 
people have demonstrated to this charlatan telepathy and precognition, but 
he refused to acknowledge them, because they were not straight out 
hollywood display.

On Thursday, 16 May 2019 05:03:54 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>
> James Randi, now retired (randi.org), had a million dollar challenge for 
> any type of paranormal and/or psychic phenomena  (such as telepathy, etc.), 
> out for 25 years - only condition on getting the money (or giving it to 
> one's favorite charity) was to actually PERFORM. Many many people said they 
> could perform, but, under impartial conditions (even with only cameras as 
> observers if that was the condition) = *their batting average was also 
> ZERO*.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3853aaa1-a536-4394-b927-1fc3f051cdc1%40googlegroups.com.

38 matches

Mail list logo