Perhaps it won't be long before real life yes/no doctor scenarios are
realized:
http://wireheading.com/misc/brain-prosthesis.html
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
On Friday, November 2, 2012 10:07:36 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
let's presume that in 999 out of 1,000 almost identical standard
models that exist in string theory, the half-life is 1 us. But in 1 out
,
Konrad Zuse, Daniel Dennett, Burkhard Heim, Stephen Wolfram, and
Jürgen Schmidhuber. I've recently put together a cohesive paper
regarding my ideas which can be found here
http://home.gcn.cx/users/jason/ideas.html
I am curious about other's opinions regarding one of my ideas in
particular
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I will take a look once I get enough time. It seems you belong to the
ASSA group, that is you accept some form of bayesianism for fundamental
probability question. Hope you will wake them up ...
(ASSA = absolute self-sampling assumption). You should read Nick
Bostrom and
It's been known since the 1970s that arbitrarily efficient computers
could be constructed that could perform an infinite number of
computations with a finite amount of energy, but only if the
computations done on that computer are logically reversible.
Performing a non-reversible computation
Mark Peaty wrote:
Hello Jason,
please excuse my ignorant interjections here but, as a
non-mathematician, non-philosopher, I need to work things into a plain
English version before I can feel that I understand them, and even then
the edges of things get fuzzy with far more ease than they get
Wei Dai wrote:
Jason, I think there may be some incorrect assumptions behind your argument.
Let me state the facts as I understand them and you can check them against
your assumptions or correct me if I'm wrong.
The only reason we need reversible computation to do an infinite number
Wei Dai wrote:
Jason wrote:
I assumed bounded memory due to the limited amount of matter and energy
available to build the computer. For instance I've seen it said that the
total information content of this universe is about 10^90 bits. If a
civilization gathered all the mass and energy
in an apparently early phase of the
universe's life. The only reconciliation I have come up with is that
the branching histories not only occur in one direction of time but
occur in both directions. I am hoping others on this list could help
resolve this apparent conflict.
Jason
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
That is, once you are a conscious entity, you will follow a constrained
branching
path through the multiverse giving the illusion of a single linear history.
Measure is
redefined at every branching point: the subjective probability of your next
moment.
Since
William wrote:
A simple way of picturing this, would be that at the big bang; the
universe is 1 piece of paper, and from then on, every second, the
piece(s) of paper is cut in half; giving 1, 2, 4, 8, ... universes. The
total area of paper remains the same and all the pieces get smaller all
.
Perhaps a species whose brains were wired this way would be maximally
moral, as they would be intolerant to any suffering and would operate
at great risk to themselves to aid other individuals.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jason Resch writes:
Let's say being spared is neutral while being tortured is obviously bad,
even
if you are tortured for only a few minutes. Also, assume the intensity of the
torture and the quality of life on being spared is the same in duplication/
coin
Jason wrote:
Here the replication is only the optimal choice for neutral life times.
If a lifetime is very positive, the 999,999 good lives outweigh the
one tortured. If the spared lifetimes were very negative, the 999,999
lifetimes would only add to the negative observer moments created
Jason wrote:
Jason wrote:
Here the replication is only the optimal choice for neutral life times.
If a lifetime is very positive, the 999,999 good lives outweigh the
one tortured. If the spared lifetimes were very negative, the 999,999
lifetimes would only add to the negative observer
sensory
information collected over the course of perhaps a 10th - 20th of a
second. This could explain why a flip book appears to have smooth
motion if you see more than 10 to 20 frames per second, and why a low
frequency sound below 10-20 Hz sounds like individal beats as opposed
to a tone.
Jason
for purely ASSA reasons, I
see no reason for it to exist for any anthropic reasons, but due to
the exponential growth in observer moments defined by many-world
universes, it makes great sense.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
could
be said to be unconscious. If a brain is a certain state is said to
be unconscious at some small interval, then when can it ever said to
be conscious?
Jason
If you could then the finer you divided it, the less information it
contained, then the more histories it would be consistent
of some states, to me, creates
a probability question. Therefore it becomes meaningful to consider
what programs will contain the largest number of observer moments, and
how common will those programs be within the UD.
Best Regards,
Jason
On Feb 9, 7:59 am, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason,
the site is great, maybe greater than I can realize today.
I, as a practical computer illiterate, (never learned any computerese
courses, not even from books) sat before it with awe, - admiring that it
works!
I might have missed
the wiki being used to explain the various concepts,
acronyms, and theories so often mentioned on this list. Every account
created on the wiki has its own dedicated page, which I think would be
an ideal place for people to describe their backgrounds and the
theories they subscribe to.
Jason
because the mystery of consciousness would
have no way of communicating itself to the brain. Therefore, I don't
see how anything external to the functioning of the brain could be
responsible for consciousness.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On Feb 19, 7:50 am, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pls see after Jason's remark
John
- Original Message -
From: Jason
To: Everything List
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL
(perfectly simulated) would also necessarily
be conscious, short of accepting a dualist position.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything
of instances of the UD created by
an infinite number of very different Gods.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
as
an infinitesmally small and rare occurance among the unlimited set of
possible observer moments.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
wiring? Or are our brains wired
that way
because the world is mathematical in that way?
Max Tegmark has several publications about the expected physical
properties needed for complex life, including why 3+1 spacetime on the
bottom of this page:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/press.html
Jason
With ASSA/RSSA there is the assumption that there is a sampling, that
of all observers (or observer moments) one is selected and
experienced. Consider momentarily, that no sampling was taking
place? Is this view consistent and valid?
Note that by no sampling I mean no discrimination. Instead
On Apr 19, 6:27 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 06:48:06PM -, Jason wrote:
With ASSA/RSSA there is the assumption that there is a sampling, that
of all observers (or observer moments) one is selected and
experienced. Consider momentarily
through time, but across branches in the multiverse.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send
between OM's (i.e. You experience now AND you will
experience 10 seconds from now) then you must conclude there is only
one mind. This is just my viewpoint on the issue and I invite others
to give their opinions on it and poke holes in it.
Jason
On Apr 20, 12:52 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason wrote:
On Apr 19, 10:34 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if there is in a sense just one mind perceiving all OM's
simultaneously
(Platonia, the mind of God, the Universe), there is still the fact
the continuation
of an observer's consciousnes in the multiverse through waking up to
find oneself an uploaded mind of a transhuman (or even a transalien
for that matter).
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
because
observers have memories of experiencing the same observer's past
perspectives in no way implies there is a single consciousness that
follows a person as they evolve through time (even though it very much
seems that way subjectively).
Jason
On Apr 26, 3:11 pm, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group
I found interesting was his ideas of how other animal's
brains might represent reality, and discusses bats seeing colors with
their ears, or dogs being able to judge the size of molecules they
smell.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344
Jason
variety of levels and types of consciousness.
Source: http://www.edge.org/q2007/q07_7.html
Jason
On Jun 3, 6:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/06/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you derive (a) ethics and (b) human-friendly ethics from
of physical events -
there is nothing magical or special about - their reality is an
illusion - they don't exist. However even if qualia/consciousness is
an elaborate illusion then it is that illusion they are referring to
when they claim to be conscious.
Jason
in hearing it.
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
in stone.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options
of information required to describe what we observe is due to
fact that what is observed in any particular observer moment is
finite, therefore requiring some information to define its bounds.
I hope I have understood that part correctly; if not Russell can
correct me.
Jason
, states may be interrelated to
produce illusions of time to observers, observers exist in interactive
environments, etc. In other words an OM requires more than the data
describing the mind, it requires a specification of a state machine
and the state which corresponds to the OM.
Jason
is quantum interference
accommodated?
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send
of sophistication?
I look forward to your response,
Jason
On Feb 27, 9:48 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just submitted my ants are not conscious argument to a
journal, and to arXiv. If you're interested, the arXiv identifier is
arXiv:0802.4121. Please wait a few hours before
of it is that it says consciousness is
the result of strange loops.
Jason
On Mar 22, 1:15 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 02:24:40AM -0700, Jason wrote:
Hello Russell,
Congratulations on your latest publication.
Today on my way home I begin to question whether
experience. This reasoning implies that
OM's can be different lengths of times for different observers, and no
OM can be instantaneous. Simpler brained organisms such as flies
might have an OM that spans much less time than a human brian's OM.
Jason
light cone for a given extent of time. If
this universe is one mind, then the universal dovetailer would be a
maximally conscious omega point, conscious of everything that can be
perceived.
Jason
On Mar 25, 7:35 am, Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have used the Easter
. protozoa or bacteria.
I hope that I have bot burdened you with all these e-mails, this one
will likely be my last on the topic of Ants are not conscious unless
you or others have further questions about my view.
Best Regards,
Jason Resch
On Mar 28, 2:17 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED
and the former colleagues of his father—Hugh Everett—
about his father's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group
in the rock, for instance, is the function for determining if
some word is known by the dictionary or not? Does the rock contain
such a dictionary?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
On Feb 11, 1:39 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:18 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent and 1Z,
The paper you referenced says the following:
No doubt life, as we know it, depends sensitively on the parameters of our
universe. However, other forms
lie: during
the computation of information, the computed result, or in the
computations upon the computed results. Maybe it requires a loop of
such hierarchies as Douglas Hofstadter suggests. I don't have an
answer but it is something I too wonder about.
Jason
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:47 AM
.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr
is
important.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Kelly harmon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 2:01 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure that the measure problem can be so easily
abandoned/ignored. Assuming every Observer Moment had has an equal
measure, then the random/white-noise
exclusive with happening more than once. The question is
whether or not that makes any difference to the observer(s?).
Jason
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Kelly harmon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
In fact I used that same
the senses it
looks like it gives up and invents patterns of its own.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
. This is a theorem in math. The rock? Show me just the 30 first
steps of a computation of square-root(2). ...
Bruno,
I am interested about your statement regarding the Mandelbrot set
implementing all computations, could you elaborate on this?
Thank you,
Jason
and multiplication are needed. Why is it
that it stops at multiplication, and not exponentiation or tetration?
Is it enough to say some form of iteration + succession are required?
(e.g. a for loop with succession gives addition, a for loop with
addition yields multiplication, etc.)
Jason
experiences, meaning
each of us is a small part of God. Interestingly you can somewhat map
these different god definitions to the trinity from Christianity.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
to hopefully become more correct. I
think it is good mental exercise to ponder the questions people on
this list raise, and despite all the disagreement, chains of
assumptions, and inability to test many of the conjectures I think
this list is slowly making progress toward truth.
Jason
On Tue, May 12
phenomenon in all
of physics that violates CPT symmetry, Liouville's Theorem, and
Special Relativity. In your original version, collapse would also
have been the only phenomenon in all of physics that was inherently
mental. Have I left anything out?
Jason
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:06 AM, ronaldheld
the computational feats of such computers are puny,
people can choose to ignore the multiverse. But something will happen
when the number of parallel calculations becomes very large, says
Deutsch. If the number is 64, people can shut their eyes but if it's
1064, they will no longer be able to pretend.
Jason
Right, I copied and pasted it and it must have lost the superscript.
Thanks for catching that.
Jason
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:48 PM, russell standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:40:09PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Deutsch. If the number is 64, people can shut
the existence of god, souls, and life after death, but I don't know if
he's ever revealed those proofs. It seems with Bruno's testable comp
hypothesis we can do the same, depending on your definitions of god,
souls, and life after death.
Jason
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
one that
mind will find itself in is not knowable?
The consequence being that all observers everywhere live in QM-like
environments?
Thanks, I look forward to your reply.
Jason
or do you count all
appearance of matter to be only a description of a computation and not
capable of true
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jun 2009, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical
universe that it could be made conscious
and the
result will always be 1 less than a square number. For example,
5*6*7*8 = 1680, which is 1 less than 1681, which is 41*41. Isn't that
neat?
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
Torngy,
How many numbers do you think exist between 0 and 1? Certainly not
only the ones we define, for then there would be a different quantity
of numbers between 1 and 2, or 2 and 3.
Jason
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se wrote:
Brian Tenneson skrev
. If its
level of surprise is greater than when repeated without the mirror, then one
might conclude the animal anticipated being poked by the probe as it saw its
reflection about to be touched.
Jason
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Dr Nick m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
Russell
I notice
software ran within
the same computer?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr
, what do you mean by those close to the unique one?
Would these be observers which appear early on in the Dovetailer Algorithm?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l
themselves must be treated as independent entities,
as well as recursively applied relations for every number. Is there a
simpler or more obvious way the existence of numbers yields the dovetailer?
Thanks,
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
over all
possible histories.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
Given the ways ASSA has been defined, I think there are two possible
camps
within ASSA. One that believes there is a next moment for you to
experience, chosen
for other questions, I
could consolidate them into a more in-depth survey.
Thanks,
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this g
There have been 9 responses so far, I've attached a preview of the results
to this e-mail. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a way to make the
results publicly viewable. With this free service, the survey will remain
live until 10 days pass or until there are 50 responses.
Jason
On Wed
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:22 PM, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:21:34AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism. Since it only benefits
those
On time, 73% take a block time perspective, while 19% believe in presentism,
and 8% in possibilism (past and present only exist). Was there anyone who
believed everything exists, but not in block time?
Thanks to everyone for your participation.
Jason
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Torgny
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What caused it to exist?
Who said it needs a cause?
Why this reality as opposed to nothing? Given the principle of
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke
in the average.
I think applying one of these philosophies could shed some light on the
inherent goodness or badness when it comes to ending a copy.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm replying to this bit seperately since Bruno touched on a different
issue than the others have. My reply to the main measure again '10 thread
will follow under the original title.
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Bruno Marchal
the redness of red, but
the software simulation would not.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:10 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
I see a red rose. You see a red rose. Is your experience of redness
the same as mine?
1. Yes, they are identical.
2. They are different
, the more
room there is for possible difference.
Jason
My (naive) answer is (3). Our experiences are identical (would a
correct term be 'ontologically identical'?) as long as they have the
same symbolic representation and the symbols have the same grounding
in the physical world. The part about
within the code that informs the simulation how to evolve, just as
the laws of physics would in a physical world. Do you see the meaning of
physical laws being somehow different from the programmed laws that simulate
an environment?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
of red, when the robot brain would?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr
of red light or an
internal property of you (the organization of neurons in your brain)?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
given input from a video game) and you agree that a robot body with a
software brain would be conscious, why would it stop working when you put a
software brain in the same position as the brain in a vat?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
functions/machines?
Thanks,
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 15:49, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 03:00, Jason Resch wrote:
Is your point that with addition, multiplication
evidence and the predicted
probabilities? How does many-minds lead to interference patterns, or only
allow a photon one exit path from an interferometer? Is this the primary
question for computationalism to answer?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
of objective
snapshots of universes also seems to conflict with the spacetime concept in
relativity, which he says is only useful as an approximation. Has this been
established or is it a theory of Deutsch's?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
. Thus life evolves and we remember new things
in the same direction of time.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send
On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:38 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
One approach to the problem that I heard regarding the arrow of time
relates to the fact that storing information (either by the brain or
in a DNA
to take
the fact that there is some base level of neural activity and assume that it
unlocks the key to Alzheimer's or consciousness, however.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
to create complex fitness tests, but evolution
would hit a wall if it reached a point where DNA molecules couldn't get any
longer.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l
,
there is nothing any uploaded person could do that would harm another
uploaded person.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
it. When China tries to censor what its citizens see its populace
can turn to technologies such as Tor, or secure proxies.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
1 - 100 of 2429 matches
Mail list logo
