Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno, when you wrote:

*"...arithmetic > number's dreams => physics*

*OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. *
*And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science..."*

for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!)  "incoherent".
That entire unfinishable series 'how an adult person can be atheist' seems
overgrown and I wanted to put down my opinion, when Edgar cut me short
with his remark that "first: we need an identification for whatever we
call: god".
Our semantics is premature and insufficient, based on that PARTIAL stuff we
may know at all and formulating FINAL conclusions upon them.
Ifelt some remark of yours agreeing with me (agnosticism).
My idrentification for what many people call "god" is known to this list:
"infinite complexity" - not better than anyone else's: it is MY belief.

Just to continue MY opinion: whatever we experienc (think?) is HUMAN stuff,
humanly experienced and thought within human logic, even if we refer to some
universal machine 'logic' and 'experience': those are adjusted to our human
ways
of thinking.

Respectfully
John Mikes



On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
> whatever) of humans
> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
> consciousness.
>
>
> I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is
> elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science
> (mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by
> incompleteness).
>
> True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is based on
> the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from arithmetic,
> not experience. So we have, roughly put:
>
> arithmetic > number's dreams => physics
>
> OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And experiences
> are based on arithmetic/computer-science.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
> Richard
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> >> He did answer and did it correctly,
>>>>
>>>
>>> > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>>>
>>> I quote myself:
>>>
>>> >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
>>> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p
>>> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
>>> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
>>> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
>>> right now?
>>>
>>>
>>> >1  (I already answered this, note)
>>>
>>> No you did not.
>>
>>>  > from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.
>>>
>>> That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.
>>
>> How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
>> John Clark's answer: 7 billion.
>>
>> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now?
>> Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
>>
>>
>> I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now.
>> Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Can you explain why you ask?
>>>
>>
>> Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and
>> 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said "the
>> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" and
>> it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by
>> this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many
>> first person experiences views from their first person points of view
>> existed on planet Earth right now.
>> It is a simple question, what is the number?
>>
>>
>> In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such
>> human 1-view.
>> In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.
>>
>> OK?
>>
>> This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. 

Re: All randomness is quantum...

[John Mikes]

List:
Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for "R A N D O M"? (my
non-Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing
the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls it
"exbeliebig" = kind of: whatever I like)
My position as far as I got the right semantic meaning would be:
non-explainable by circumstances leading to it, what
is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain
and that would be the end of randomity.
I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the "take any
number" - however many of these are joking.
I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk
'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
circumstances of the topic.

John Mikes


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
> topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.
>
> As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
> simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of
> non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true
> randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level.
>
> At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. However
> the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these computations is
> random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum level randomness
> can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical level depending
> on the information structures involved.
>
> To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they
> don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum)
> randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses
> contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to
> completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the
> code and/or data.
>
> Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to
> randomness and fails
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

[John Mikes]

Jason, thanks for your "help". I am afraid it does not help me much.
Whatever you listed is contrary to my agnostic doubts.

Your #1:since I do not accept p[hysical phenomena as well understood
'reality', entropy is doubtful. It is bound to the level of known
circumstances (the maximum disorder that can be an ordered state if much
more elements are included) - not to mention my  insecurity when it comes
to 'data' (what kind?) etc. in an unlimited agnostic view.

Your #2-a - we are not in a position of restricting a process into
'nondeterminism' without the knowledge of ALL possible (and impossible?)
variations. The infinite interplay within the 'infinite complexity'
(unknowable to us) is in *some way* detrministic - not within our human
mind of today maybe.
#2-b: - chaotic sounds similar to random to me (resolvable in some way in
due time/course). Pseudo-random is close to the 'conditional random of the
given circumstances' what I mentioned with my discussion with Russell. The
weather is unknown, good for the weatherman to make a living. Too many so
far unobservables included into the final outcome. With your "modern"
ciphers I claim ignorance.

Your #3 comes back to the infinite (and mostly still unknowable) variables,
yet influencing OUR probabilities(?) where I see no usable ground for a
'uniform' distribution. Akin to my denial of 'statistical'.

Look at all these conditions in a framework of 1000, 3000, 5000 years ago
and imagine 2000 years hence (if you can/dare).

Agnosticism is a hard thing to abide by.

Respectfully
John Mikes


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

> John,
>
> I think there are a couple of senses in which the word "random" can be
> used:
>
> 1. Uncompressibe (maximum entropy) for some information, sequence, or data
> 2. Unpredictable in theory or practice
>a. When in theory, a non-deterministic process such as such as with
> wave-function collapse or first person indeterminacy
>b. Unpredictable in practice, such as chaotic, or pseudo-random
> processes (the weather, or the output of modern ciphers).
> 3. A variable whose value has a some probabilistic distribution
> (especially when the distribution is uniform)
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> List:
>> Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for "R A N D O M"? (my
>> non-Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing
>> the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls it
>> "exbeliebig" = kind of: whatever I like)
>> My position as far as I got the right semantic meaning would be:
>> non-explainable by circumstances leading to it, what
>> is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain
>> and that would be the end of randomity.
>> I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the "take any
>> number" - however many of these are joking.
>> I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk
>> 'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
>> circumstances of the topic.
>>
>> John Mikes
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>> Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
>>> topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.
>>>
>>> As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
>>> simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of
>>> non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true
>>> randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level.
>>>
>>> At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact.
>>> However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these
>>> computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum
>>> level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical
>>> level depending on the information structures involved.
>>>
>>> To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they
>>> don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum)
>>> randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses
>>> contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to
>>> completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the
>>> code and/or data.
>>>
>>> Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to
>>> randomness and fa

Re: Dear Edgar Owen

[John Mikes]

I don't intend to play DA or Defense just muse about the 'firmness' of  a
temporary "scientific belief" (even supportable by tests using instruments
- or theories - based on the acceptability of those "beliefs"). There were
'centuries' with scientific belief of the Geocentric pattern - when
Copernicus thought differently, introducing 'centuries of "heliocentrism"-'
until Hubble came up with brand new ideas leading to a 'firm' scientific
belief of a Big Bang based cosmology. And it MAY go on and on.
No one tried to try the 'new' to be subject to the experimental proof of
the old.

I am not on Edgar's side, I am agnostic. Physical law and other
conventional science make only 'practical' sense to me - they are
facilitating the development of an (almost) fitting new technology - I
dislike 'thought experiments' and human logic based proof applied to new
systems/ideas about the 'totality'.

The R. Rosen 'model' of the world - the limited ensemble of the presently
knowables - is part of the wider totality of (as I like to call it)
Infinite Complexity of Everything. We have no way to learn more than
included within the model and the format is adjusted to our limited mental
capabilities: accordingly the 'infinite' may look(?) quite different. Yet
it has it's effect on the
In-Model ensemble.  We are part of the World, not above it, so our logic
and thinking may be partial as well. We 'use' practical conclusions - yet
should not draw final and universal ones on a totality we don't know. Call
it Scientific humility.

I like 'fresh' ideas penetrate the List (with more flesh, maybe, not only
hints to "in my book" references).

Respectfully (as a list-member since the last millennium)

John M


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM, freqflyer07281972 <
thismindisbud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Might I respectfully suggest the following:
>
> 1) That when you have an "obvious" intuition or brilliant stroke of
> insight that goes against a century or more of insight from the most
> distinguished physicists and
>
> 2) That when you are unable to operationalize your intuition in such a way
> that other people could perform an experiment to see what you are saying is
> true and that it does in fact go against the received wisdom then...
>
> You might reconsider the merit of your originally amazing intuition and
> ask yourself if you might not in fact be in error and/or suffering from a
> bit of self-deception. Yes, it does seem quite "obvious" and "self-evident"
> that we all share a single present, I absolutely and utterly agree with you
> here. However, I also appreciate the various thought experiments put
> forward by Einstein originally and now by other (quite sharp) people on
> this list pointing out how this intuition simply cannot be true. These
> thought experiments have later become actual experiments whose results have
> agreed, not with our incredibly clear and obvious intuition, but with the
> very counter-intuitive predictions that Einstein provided.
>
> I'm not going to hash out more examples. I don't think it's necessary.
> I've included some links you might want to read at the end. What I think is
> happening though is you might be deceiving yourself a bit in thinking that
> you are so brilliant in arriving at insights that absolutely no one else
> has come to, and you are kind of starting to come across like this 
> guy.
>
> If you really want to understand behavior of the physical world we live in
> (or apparently physical, but actually computational, a la Bruno), maybe try
> these links out:
>
> http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/srelwhat.html
>
> http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html
>
> http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
>
> Peace out,
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The background to Edgar's book

[John Mikes]

Dear Liz,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes)
I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review
approval on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific
fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for
several new ideas that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and
debate').

Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic'
conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already
known inventory of science etc.
While it does not support the 'new' ideas, it does not prove them wrong by
itself, either.

I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness Sci)
and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a
"homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly
ever since.
John Mikes


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Edgar,
>
> Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
> popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
> mathematically (like David Deutsch's "Fabric Of Reality") or which are the
> product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
> philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
> substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
> Standish's "Theory Of Nothing"). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
>
> Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
> imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say "much" because
> having done this myself I know that it's very hard *not* to solicit
> feedback, and *not* to act on it to some extent. But I always try to bear
> in mind this advice from Neil Gaiman: "Remember: when people tell you
> something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right.
> When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they
> are almost always wrong.").
>
> I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
> fall into.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Nature of Truth

[John Mikes]

Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just marking the
#s of your par-s into my short remarks.

#1
As long as we don't "know" ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff we
cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality', only quote the so far received
part and that, too, as adjusted into our contemporary mental ways.
Compare such stuff of today with a similar 'analysis' 3000 years ago...
Is 'today' different in the continuing course of past to future? (cf: #5)

#2
I would not mix the (final?) *theoretical* conclusion with our
*practical*ways of today. We live and so did our forefathers '3000
years ago' (or
whenever).

#3
I would not mix the 'final (theoretical?) conclusion' about the entire
world into a contemporary human-mind product (our logic).

#4
You (I?) cannot compare the today available portion - and that transformed
into human belief - with the entirety of the infinite complexity so I would
not mention "truth". Again: compare your contemporary 'truth' concepts with
a similar stance - say - of 3000 years ago. Did Ishtarians have the same
'truth'?

#5
Right you are. What was 'true' for UGGH the caveman is different from what
you described as 'true' for today. Do you think that 5000 years into the
future - if humanity survives that long - our descendants will find the
SAME truth as we may identify today?

And one more thing: (last par) I would not be so firm that 'our' internal
model of reality is representing the 'external' reality at all. We just
don't know about that 'external' stuff and our present internal ideas about
it are our human fabrications. I do not believe it is time to think of a
"Final" Theory.

John Mikes


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All,
>
> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
> starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
> separate issue from previous discussions.
>
>
> 1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we
> know external reality only filtered through the structures of our own
> minds. What we really know is only our own mental model of external reality
> which is provably very very different than actual external reality.
>
> 2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental
> reality to an extent sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively
> within it. If we didn't have some actual true knowledge of external reality
> we could not even function within it and thus could not exist. So our very
> existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some true knowledge of
> it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure rather
> than the physical world we believe it to be.)
>
> 3. External reality is a consistent logical structure. It is computed, and
> for it to be computed it must follow consistent logical rules.
>
> 4. Therefore the only real test of truth is its internal logical
> consistency over the entire scope of knowledge. We can not directly compare
> our knowledge to the external world because it is filtered through the
> structures of our own senses and minds, but we do know that our knowledge
> is truth to the extent it is internally self-consistent over maximum scope.
>
> 5. In fact this is the actual working basis of scientific method,
> forensics, our successful functioning in daily life and in all human
> endeavors that seek truth. Namely is the body of knowledge in question
> internally consistent. If it is not then something is UNtrue.
>
> This is the Consistency Theory of Knowledge. Consistency over maximum
> scope IS truth, the only truth possible to know.
>
> There is and can be no direct knowledge of truth, there is only
> consistency.
>
> This applies to all types of truth, from the logical structures in daily
> life moment to moment, as well as to knowledge of a "Final Theory".
>
>
> There is however one important exception. Our mental model of reality is
> part of the actual external reality, and we do have direct knowledge of
> that. The truth of that is the thing itself. But its truth is an internal
> mental model of external reality, not the external reality it pretends to
> be.
>
> Edgar
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more

Re: The background to Edgar's book

[John Mikes]

Dear Liz: you wrote in your PS:  "epitheton" is itself an "ornamental
epitheton", I'd say. I do hope it wasn't just a typo!"
I looked up epitheton and found (German) vocabulary meanings without any
hint to an ornamental nature.
In a Google English translational part it appeared as "EPITHET" with the
following text: (still no ornamentalist side-tone)


"The noun epithet is a descriptive nickname, such as "Richard the
Lionhearted," or "Tommy the Terrible." When it takes a turn for the worse, *it
can also be a word or phrase that offends*."

"Don’t let *epithet’s* bad reputation fool you — that’s only half the
story. An epithet can be harmless, a nickname that catches on, like all
hockey fans knowing that "Sid the Kid" is Sidney Crosby. On the flip side, *an
epithet can be an abusive word or phrase* that should never be used, like a
racial epithet that offends and angers everyone."

It included *'epithet ornans'*. I found no hint to any 'ornamental' meaning
included. Did you mean that 'ornamental' serves the same addition as the
(unspecified) epitheton? I wanted to emphasize my appreciative cognotion of
that (not too benevolent) characterization by the reviewer..

JM


.



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Dear Liz,
>> as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and
>> Membranes) I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get
>> peer-review approval on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional
>> scientific fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space
>> for several new ideas that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide
>> and debate').
>>
>
> There are two things being presented here. One is an idea which is fine in
> itself - reality is computed. It isn't obviously self-contradictory, and
> has I think been suggested quite a few times in various flavours (I'm sure
> Conway must have come up with this, as have Russell Standish, I think, and
> Bruno of course, plus probably some other people). It's a fairly obvious
> idea for the age - "it steam-engines when it comes steam engine time" or
> whatever.
>
> The other is a Newtonian theory of time. This contradicts special
> relativity, and hence is an "extraordinary claim". This claim has not yet
> had any support that shows its author understands what the problems with it
> are. Hence it not only "doesn't fit into the scientific fabric of college
> courses", it flatly contradicts everything we've learned about reality
> since 1905 - all the experimental confirmation of SR, the whole lot. That
> should require extraordinary evidence before it is worth considering.
>
>>
>> Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic'
>> conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already
>> known inventory of science etc. While it does not support the 'new' ideas,
>> it does not prove them wrong by itself, either.
>>
>
> There is no contradiction between Edgar's theory and reductionism, it is a
> reductionist theory. What proves (or comes very close to proving) Edgar's
> theory of time wrong is that it contradicts most of 20th century physics,
> both theoretical and experimental. His theory of computational reality
> isn't itself rendered wrong by the "known inventory of science" of course.
> (By the way, your use of these buzz phrases does rather suggest that you
> are pushing an agenda here. Science is far more than you are trying to make
> out - it isn't all conventional, blinkered fuddy-duddies dismissing
> crackpot ideas, but has room for plenty of outrageous speculation - as long
> as it is properly grounded, doesn't flat-out contradict a century of
> experimentation, etc.)
>
>>
>> I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness
>> Sci) and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a
>> "homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly
>> ever since.
>>
>> Always easiest to think your opponents have dismissed your ideas because
> they are "conservative" (or "bourgeois", or "heretics" or whatever
> epitheton you wish to apply) -- rather than because just maybe they knew
> more about the subject, and could see where your ideas were wrong.
>
> PS "epitheton" is itself an "ornamental epitheton", I'd say. I do hope it
> wasn't just a typo!
>
> --
> You received this message because you 

Re: A Theory of Consciousness

[John Mikes]

Dear Edgar, you use words in your nicely flowing text that raise questions
in my 'mind'(?) while reading them.

*Consciousness "ITSELF"?* what may be your take on consciousness (not
itself)? I mean: the term Ccness as used by diverse authors in diverse
contexts applied to their ways of thinking. (As I wrote several times
including this list as well: my take is:
*Response to Relations*, changed from Response to information, because info
became hard to handle in general sense. I have no definition for
'relations' because our (infinite) inventory is incomplete (to put it
mildly). No mind(?), no life, no human/animal included. I try to step out
from the human-identified domains of Nature (The Everything) in spite of
our ignorance.

*Mind - *we use the word freely*. I.e.* free from understanding it. "Our
mentality" is not much better. "Brainwork" has yet to be linked to
'thought' (thinking) beyond a blank "That's It". Our physical measurements
do not specify mental domains.

*How does consciousness arise from a physical world? * - Well, does it
indeed? Do you have an adequate definition for a 'physical world'? with all
the beliefs and suppositions (axioms etc.) we (scientists?) hold for
'physical'? Does an astrocyte have to be green to pertain to music and
orange to refer to history? A neuron labelled? We ASSIGN functions because
we need them. Then, - maybe - we correct ourselves.

Your par "*The key to the solution..." *is above my head*. *What is an
"unconscious observer"? In my agnosticism EVERY item recognizing a relation
is an observer. Thermostat and all.

*"...things become conscious..."  r*ight. They respond to relations. In the
next (heavy) par:

*reality *by itself is a toughy: what do we know about it? if you
epithetize reality then you may say anything about that kind.

*Information computations - *e.g. G.B.Shaw was Irish (information). How
would your 'brain'  compute this?.

*ELO: This is the best, most convincing theory of consciousness of which
I'm aware. But like most of my theories it requires a big paradigm shift in
understanding since it's a completely new interpretation of reality.*
I don't argue, just did not find it. Not the promised 'theory' - not the
interpretation of reality. Maybe it is my fault not having read your
book.Mea culpa.

Dear Edgar, I am not your opponent here: I am sure many list-members (if
they take the time) will respond neagitvely to my ideas exposed in this
(and other) posts. You wrote your own stuff, I write my own one. Liz will
hit us both on the head.

Best regards and a Happy New Year for ALL

John Mikes



On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All,
>
> I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book
> on Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
>
> To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between
> consciousness ITSELF and the contents of consciousness that become
> conscious by appearing within consciousness itself.
>
> The nature of consciousness itself, why things seem conscious, is the
> subject of Chalmer's 'Hard Problem', whereas the various structures of the
> contents of consciousness are the so called 'Easy Problems', the subjects
> of the study of mind.
>
> Chalmer's formulation of the Hard Problem is 'How does consciousness arise
> from a physical brain?' Let's generalized this a little to 'How does
> consciousness arise from a physical world?'
>
> The key to the solution is understanding that the world is not 'physical'
> in the sense assumed. It is not a passive clockwork Newtonian world that
> just sits there waiting to be brought into consciousness by an observer. In
> fact the notion of observation is intrinsic to reality itself in a manner
> that reality actively manifests most of the defining attributes of reality
> on its own and all the conscious observer adds is participation in that
> process from a particular locus with a particular computational nformation
> structure.
>
> I'll explain how this works though the theory is subtle and requires some
> work, and there is a lot to it I don't cover here.
>
> In ancient times there was an extramission (emission) theory of vision,
> that objects were seen because the eyes shown light on them. Today we still
> have the functionally identical emission theory of consciousness, that
> things become conscious because mind somehow shines consciousness on them.
>
> Both theories are wrong. Things are conscious because reality continually
> SELF-MANIFESTS itself. It continually computes itself into existence, and
> existence self-manifests. It is immanent because it is actually

Re: The One

[John Mikes]

Dear Telmo
(I suppose a 'freer mind than several nat.-scientist listers) allow me some
musings (not that I want to hide them from the rest of the List).
Thinking of Bruno's *integer-restricted arithmetics* with addition and
subtraction only:
it is the* World Of ONE*, multiplied as much as you wish (two ways: + and
-). Numerals?
So we elevated to some understanding of the* "ONE"* (*unit?*) and our
uncontrollable mind made out of it the Entire World. Or we don't understand
even that 'one';
Bruno applied his extremely educated (and disciplined) mind to elevate this
'one' into sophisticated logical systems (what I never studied, sorry to
say).

There are also opinionated remarks about 'physical' (etc.?) *laws* with
fancy conclusions.
In my opinion a physical law is the summation of observations WITHIN limits
of our so far achieved knowledge and the 'majority' seems to be the "norm"
('law'). Then comes the condiment: lots of math and similar deductions and
voila: our conventional sciences.
Extend the limits (of our observations? or knowledge?) and the "laws"
change. That happened in our (cultural? human?) history continually. I do
not appreciate the level at which we are today: it will change as it
changed from the past.
Societal (communal?) 'law' is different: it is a compromise between
interests of diverse classes of members of a society including the
powerfuls' as giving the overtone.

Reality is beyond our (human) mental capabilities to detect, I humbly
disregard the "Slanted Realities" like mathematical, or religious, etc.
partial views. Same with truth.
I like to talk about my 'agnosticism' and *MY* beliefs based in it: the
'infinite copmp[lexity' beyond our (limited) model of knowables (because I
cannot comprehend "infinite" - or - "complexity" as a simple-minded human).

So after having passed an old fashioned rigorous Ph.D. at a 5century old
Universitas in chemistry, physics and math, published ~100 papers (both in
research and technical implementation of own results mostly in the
polymer-field) lectured on 3 continents and having gotten 38 patents to my
inventorship, I do not believe in 'atoms' (molecules?)
and consider the physical world a 'human' makeup for ever changing and
poorly understood phenomena as their synthesis into a 'scientifically
balanced' conventional view which, however, produced lots of (almost
perfect?) practical results into our lives.

Have a prosperous 2014 and then more to come
John Mikes D.Sc.






On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> > Dear Stephen,
> >
> >
> > On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:21, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bruno,
> >
> >   I do not understand something.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK. (good!)
> >
> >
> >
> > Your idea
> >
> >
> > It is not an idea, but a result in an hypothetical context (or
> theoretical
> > context).
> >
> >
> >
> > seems to me to be a very sophisticated and yat sneaky way of
> reintroducing
> > Newton/Laplacean absolute time and/or Leibnitz' Pre-established Harmony.
> >
> >
> > It is only a remind of elementary arithmetic. The music 0, s0, ss0, sss0,
> > 0, s0, ss0, sss0, ...
> > You can see it as an elementary block digital time. If you want. And then
> > all other times are relative indexicals, including the physical and
> > subjective times.
>
> Bruno,
>
> I think I (perhaps naively) understand what you mean. My understanding
> is that, if comp is true, then the relationship between comp and the
> physical laws we observe is not a simple one. Even QM would be at a
> high level of abstraction in relation to raw reality. In this case,
> the recursive definition of integers would be the simplest possible
> expression of a fundamental building block that is responsible for
> time -- although the time we experience is a much more complex
> phenomena.
>
> It makes sense to me that time is strongly related to recursivity
> (maybe because of a CS background). I imagine moments being "copied
> forward" and changed in some fashion.
>
> Would you agree with these intuitions?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I recall reading how much Einstein himself loved the idea and was loath
> to
> > give it up, thus motivating his quest for a classical grand unified field
> > theory. Physics has moved on...
> >
> >
> > After Aristotle Physics has also moved on ... I think Einstein was right
> on
> > QM, and wrong on GR, in the sense that GR has to be justi

Re: The One

[John Mikes]

Bruno, you made my day.

 Reminds me of a Hungarian humorous author (P. Howard) who wrote about a
blind philosopher (The Sleepy Elephant) and his assistant living in the
deep Sahara - showing the Elephant's Life Oeuvre in a BIG book, the
assistant was supposed to write as the old Blind Elephant dictated. It was
all empty and the assistant asked somebody to inscribe: "I cannot write,
but it makes him so happy when I pretend..." -

When reading your remarks I wonder what REALLY mean 'machine',  'comp',
 'universal', and some more of your words I got used to over the past 2
decades, yet are not "clear"(??) enough in my mind to automatically
click-in when used.
Do you have a *glossary *I could download, to refresh those (brief!)
meanings? I - and I believe some others, too - are immerged into our own
vocabulary-meanings and to read your text requires a mental translation
into your world of conceptualization. Maybe I am too old to do it 'en
passant'. I cannot start reading your life's ouvre to get to those words.

And sorry to denigrate your 'multiplication' into subtraction.

One word about 'refutable': it was - as far as I know - Popper's criterion
for the 'scientific'.
I like to go further and dethrone it in cases when we just don't know
enough - neither to produce a suitable refutation, nor even to catch a
(real?) meaning of something new.

Respectfully

John M



On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 06 Jan 2014, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Telmo
> (I suppose a 'freer mind than several nat.-scientist listers) allow me
> some musings (not that I want to hide them from the rest of the List).
> Thinking of Bruno's *integer-restricted arithmetics* with addition and
> subtraction only:
>
>
> addition and multiplication (actually, just a detail).
>
>
>
> it is the* World Of ONE*, multiplied as much as you wish (two ways: + and
> -). Numerals?
> So we elevated to some understanding of the* "ONE"* (*unit?*) and our
> uncontrollable mind made out of it the Entire World. Or we don't understand
> even that 'one';
> Bruno applied his extremely educated (and disciplined) mind to elevate
> this 'one' into sophisticated logical systems (what I never studied, sorry
> to say).
>
>
> I derived it from the computationalist *assumption*.
>
>
>
> There are also opinionated remarks about 'physical' (etc.?) *laws* with
> fancy conclusions.
> In my opinion a physical law is the summation of observations WITHIN
> limits of our so far achieved knowledge and the 'majority' seems to be the
> "norm" ('law'). Then comes the condiment: lots of math and similar
> deductions and voila: our conventional sciences.
> Extend the limits (of our observations? or knowledge?) and the "laws"
> change. That happened in our (cultural? human?) history continually. I do
> not appreciate the level at which we are today: it will change as it
> changed from the past.
> Societal (communal?) 'law' is different: it is a compromise between
> interests of diverse classes of members of a society including the
> powerfuls' as giving the overtone.
>
> Reality is beyond our (human) mental capabilities to detect,
>
>
> It is beyond all machine's ability, not just the humans (I assume comp, of
> course). All machine believing in a reality can discover that indeed most
> of it will transcend his capacity, even when assuming comp. The ontology
> becomes very simple (only 0 and its successor, or only the combinators K
> and S, with their applications, ...), but the epistemology, which include
> the physics, get infinitely complex and rich.
>
>
>
> I humbly disregard the "Slanted Realities" like mathematical, or
> religious, etc. partial views. Same with truth.
> I like to talk about my 'agnosticism' and *MY* beliefs based in it: the
> 'infinite copmp[lexity' beyond our (limited) model of knowables (because I
> cannot comprehend "infinite" - or - "complexity" as a simple-minded human).
>
>
> We agree on this. The nice point is that absolutely all machines, when
> correct, agrees with this, and discover it by themselves.
>
>
>
>
> So after having passed an old fashioned rigorous Ph.D. at a 5century old
> Universitas in chemistry, physics and math, published ~100 papers (both in
> research and technical implementation of own results mostly in the
> polymer-field) lectured on 3 continents and having gotten 38 patents to my
> inventorship, I do not believe in 'atoms' (molecules?)
>
>
> Nor do any correct machine when introspecting enough

Re: Posting problems

[John Mikes]

Edgar, to your oldie question: sometimes my replies appear WITHIN  the
origianl post headings, not as a separate mail-in. I use the "arrow" at the
top of the post to be answered, when a box opens for my reply. I dislike
the "reply" at the end of the post.
Why? who knows, I am agnosstic (ha ha)
John Mikes


On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Edgar Owen  wrote:

> Yes, of course it is set to that. We'll see if this gets posted
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm using gmail and it works flawlessly. Just check when replying that the
> address is set to "everything-list@googlegroups.com"  (it should normally
> default to that as the Reply-To header is set to that address).
>
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
>
> 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen 
>
>> I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working
>> OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to
>> get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac
>> mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post
>> ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail
>> over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just
>> fine.
>>
>> Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[John Mikes]

Edgar wrote:

*Terren,*
*All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of
whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your question which
is why I didn't answer before...*
*Edgar*

I would risk the typo: *consciousless* instead of *your* (grammatical) typo
. Do you know the way a newborn 'adjusts' *input data* in its starting
intellect? Prof. Singer of Princeton does not trust babies minds during the
first 2 months of after-birth life. I don't remember, was never so young.
In my agnosticism I compose much more into that very poorly identified (and
really not  AGREED-UPON) term of *Ccness* why I extended its meaning beyond
'being conscious'. E.g.: while being "unconscious" (aka: cut out
consciousness??) -  while sleeping, you still react to an alarm clock, or a
glass of cold water in your face.  So I was looking for a wider territory
meaning and arrived at the *'response to relations'* - (no matter what
domain in the world-wide existence (reality???). - Awareness etc. included.

Now: do not take it hard from me, if I filter your 'book' (ideas,
explanations?) through my many-decades long conclusions (most learned 7
decades+ ago and do not just believe what YOU write. Most list-members are
not ignorant novices, many have firm opinions of things you re-define and
this is a natural source of disbelief.
Your "In my book" is no argument. We wrote books as well. .

*I "know" for sure that we don't know anything for sure.* I will not hunt
after such items and when I post disbelief that is something I usually can
support from my past  experience.

Have a good 2014 and beyond

John Mikes




On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Terren,
>
> All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of
> whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your question which
> is why I didn't answer before...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, I replied with a question that went unanswered.
>>
>> It was a question about whether a human baby, fed a stream of virtual
>> sense data as in the movie The Matrix, could be considered conscious in
>> your theory, as you seemed to suggest that consciousness was a property of
>> reality, as a function somehow of "ontological energy".
>>
>> Terren
>> On Jan 8, 2014 1:49 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>
>>> Telmo,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link but see my new topic "A theory of consciousness" of
>>> a few days ago which no one has even commented on and which is much more
>>> reasonable and explanatory.
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In case you haven't seen it...
>>>>
>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
>>>>
>>>> Seems like an attempt to recover materialism, which strikes me as
>>>> somewhat unexpected from Tegmark. Am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Telmo.
>>>>
>>>  --
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Nature of Truth

[John Mikes]

Bruno and Brent:

did you agree whether *"TRUE BELIEF*" means in your sentences

1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely), or
2. the TRUTH  that one believes in it (a maybe)?
(none of the two may be 'true').

JM


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.
>
>
>
>  ?
> I answered "no" to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any way
> from belief (assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in the world
> those beliefs are true, but this you can never know as such.
>
>
> Since your theory to an infinite number of semi-classical worlds with
> different events (and even different physics) it seems that "true belief"
> is not a very useful concept.
>
>
> It is, because by incompleteness, we will have that Bp & p (true belief)
> obeys a different logic (an epistemic intuitionist logic)  despite G* knows
> that it is the same machine, having the same action. The machine just dont
> know that, although it can infer it from comp + a sort of faith in herself.
>
>
>
> Every belief is going to have probability zero of being true.
>
>
> neither Bp  nor Bp & p is a priori related to probability. For this you
> need []p -> <>p, which is ocrrect for Bp & p, though, and indeed a physics
> appears already there, but that is a sort of anomaly (which confirms what I
> took as an anomaly in Plotinus, but the machine agrees with him).
> Now, Bp, when present in the nuances, gives the logic of the corresponding
> "certainty", so it is trivially a probability one. We need to extract the
> logic, and the probability different from 1 are handled by the mathematics,
> and is related to the Dp (not Bp). The probability bears on the accessible
> "worlds".
>
>
>
> The interesting concept is the probability of future events relative to
> one's current state.
>
>
> That's exactly why we need to go from Bp to Bp & Dt (or Bp & Dt & p, or
> actually Bp & p). This gives the relevant notion of relative consistency
> together with some temporal interpretation.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The One

[John Mikes]

Bruno and Brent,
please do not paint me as a Robert Rosen imitation. I have esteem for his
mind, but tried to go on from SOME of his thoughts in my own way.  He was a
mathematician and a biologist, I am none of those. His untimely death cut
his thoughts and I believe there would have been more to it if he continues
and publishes not only what may be compatible with a reductionist audience,
but ventures into agnosticism himself, beyond his 'model' limited to the
presently(?) knowbles.
At best I am a 'heretic' Rosenite, as I am a 'heretic Marchallite (if I may
say so).

Brent may be right with his "leading nowhere", which may be the itinery of
our present ignorance.

John M


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/8/2014 9:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>  On 07 Jan 2014, at 23:20, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Bruno, you made my day.
>
>  Reminds me of a Hungarian humorous author (P. Howard) who wrote about a
> blind philosopher (The Sleepy Elephant) and his assistant living in the
> deep Sahara - showing the Elephant's Life Oeuvre in a BIG book, the
> assistant was supposed to write as the old Blind Elephant dictated. It was
> all empty and the assistant asked somebody to inscribe: "I cannot write,
> but it makes him so happy when I pretend..." -
>
>
>  Lol
>
>
>
>  When reading your remarks I wonder what REALLY mean 'machine',  'comp',
>  'universal', and some more of your words I got used to over the past 2
> decades, yet are not "clear"(??) enough in my mind to automatically
> click-in when used.
> Do you have a *glossary *I could download, to refresh those (brief!)
> meanings?
>
>
>  I have no glossary. Maybe I should do that. I use each term in the most
> standard sense used by the expert in the field. Computable is made
> ultra-standard, if I can say, thanks to the Church thesis.
>
>  Let me try an explanation, below,  for the notions mentioned above.
>
>  (I am aware that you appreciate Robert Rosen critics of Church Thesis,
> but as you know I have some reservation that it is really a critics of
> Church thesis, as a critic of possible misuse of Church's thesis).
>
>
> I'd take Rosen as a cautionary example of holism leading nowhere.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark and consciousness

[John Mikes]

Brent:

thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words!
 I lost track of him lately  in the West-Australian deserts (from where he
seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s)
by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him
indeed).
I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making
them fundamental to my developing agnosticism.

Brent, to your short closing remark:
I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of
consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain,
pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value "structure"
more than just material functioning.  And I wish I had such (your?)
alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it.

I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called
"science of consciousness". What I would have added is a date of yesterday
(and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier
(millennia?) similar concoctions)
.
And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all.

Well: what  *- IS -*  the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the
majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the
portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our
mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory).
(Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings)
It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and
the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the
totality.

Thank you, Colins (and Brent)

John Mikes


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
> made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
> progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
> becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically
> performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must
> exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a
> form of mysticism.
>
>
> Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some
> others that are structually similar are and that some others are not.  A
> plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the
> structure.  Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark and consciousness

[John Mikes]

Liz: the first that came to mind was Edgar's "isn't it obvious'?" but I did
not want to make fun of him.
Of you: maybe. How do you expect me to give you examples from BEYOND our
knowable circumstances to illustrate what is beyond our knowable? Physix
works with the boundaries of our present knowledge, its laws are within. I
am tired to dig up my retired computer to (maybe) find Paul Churchland's
example (from before his marriage) of a 'tribe' with different physics (the
first that came to mind). Then there are the books about the Zarathustrans,
(Collins-Stewart?) Figment of Reality - I am tired to look up now. Maybe if
I survive my 92th in some days and relax I will respond in more detail. But
I have my own explanations as well...just take the 'infinite' seriously.
John


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 15 January 2014 11:09, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries
>> and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of
>> the totality.
>>
>> I think I follow this but I'm not sure. Could you explain further, or
> give an example.?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark and consciousness

[John Mikes]

Bruno, as I recall my recollection of Colin was an oldie one from his
young-age ideas. Many many years ago.

John


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:09, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent:
>
> thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words!
>  I lost track of him lately  in the West-Australian deserts (from where he
> seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s)
> by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him
> indeed).
> I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making
> them fundamental to my developing agnosticism.
>
> Brent, to your short closing remark:
> I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of
> consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain,
> pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value "structure"
> more than just material functioning.  And I wish I had such (your?)
> alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it.
>
> I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called
> "science of consciousness". What I would have added is a date of yesterday
> (and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier
> (millennia?) similar concoctions)
> .
> And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all.
>
> Well: what  *- IS -*  the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the
> majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the
> portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our
> mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory).
> (Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings)
> It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries
> and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of
> the totality.
>
>
> From what I understand, Colin's try to introduce in the exact sciences the
> lack of rigor of the human sciences. I believe in the contrary: we must
> come back to rigor in the human and fundamental science.
> I don't see at all how Colin's approach can be consistent with the
> correct-machine, and human, fundamental agnosticism.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Thank you, Colins (and Brent)
>
> John Mikes
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
>> made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
>> progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
>> becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically
>> performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must
>> exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a
>> form of mysticism.
>>
>>
>> Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some
>> others that are structually similar are and that some others are not.  A
>> plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the
>> structure.  Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.c

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

[John Mikes]

Stathis and List:

from time to time it is useful to recall what we are thinking behind
'words'. Is the *'brain'* as used in this exchange indeed* 'brainfunction'*?
(ref. to "functionalism vs computationalism")
To 'preserve *mind*' begs the question how it is differentiated in this
exchange?
Then again* 'intelligence'* is a flexible item (I start from "inter" -
"lego" = to read between the lines, not to stick to the (written?) words
proper).
The *'non-computable physics'* in Penrose's brain begs the question: *"STILL"
or "NOT AT ALL"?*
Is the acceptance of the* NEW* a *mind*function only, (increasing the
knowledge-base), or can be done by a hypercomputer as well (without proper
programming for the so far unknowables' input???)
And I hate the references to *'zombies',* whatever one thinks about them.
I stick to my common sense* in my agnosticism*.

John Mikes


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On 16 January 2014 23:08, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> >
> > On 16 Jan 2014, at 09:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the
> Intel
> >>> CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the sense
> that
> >>> a
> >>> computer can in theory do everything your brain can do is almost
> >>> certainly
> >>> correct. It is not that the brain is like a computer, but rather, that
> a
> >>> computer can be like almost anything, including your brain or body, or
> >>> entire planet and all the people on it.
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>
> >>
> >> I think neuroscientists have, over decades, used the computational
> >> metaphor in too literal a way. It is obviously not true that the brain
> >> is a digital computer, just as it is not true that the weather is a
> >> digital computer. But a digital computer can simulate the behaviour of
> >> any physical process in the universe (if physics is computable),
> >> including the behaviour of weather or the human brain. That means
> >> that, at least, it would be possible to make a philosophical zombie
> >> using a computer. The only way to avoid this conclusion would be if
> >> physics, and specifically the physics in the brain, is not computable.
> >> Pointing out where the non-computable physics is in the brain rarely
> >> figures on the agenda of the anti-computationalists. And even if there
> >> is non-computational physics in the brain, that invalidates
> >> computationalism, but not its superset, functionalism.
> >
> >
> > OK. But in a non standard sense of functionalism, as in the philosophy of
> > mind, functionalism is used for a subset of computationalism.
> Functionalism
> > is computationalism with some (unclear) susbtitution level in mind
> (usually
> > the neurons).
> >
> > Now, I would like to see a precise definition of "your" functionalism. If
> > you take *all* functions, it becomes trivially true, I think. But any
> > restriction on the accepted functions, can perhaps lead to some
> interesting
> > thesis. For example, the functions computable with this or that oracles,
> the
> > continuous functions, etc.
>
> Briefly, computationalism is the idea that you could replace the brain
> with a Turing machine and you would preserve the mind. This would not
> be possible if there is non-computable physics in the brain, as for
> example Penrose proposes. But in that case, you could replace the
> brain with whatever other type of device is needed, such as a
> hypercomputer, and still preserve the mind. I would say that is
> consistent with functionalism but not computationalism. The idea that
> replicating the function of the brain by whatever means would not
> preserve the mind, i.e. would result in a philosophical zombie, is
> inconsistent with functionalism.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

[John Mikes]

Bruno, let me use simple words (you seem to overcomplicate my input).

What IS the *'mind'* you PRESERVE?
Then again your ref. to the MW duplication is irrelevant for me: I do not
duplicate. (It goes with my answer NO to the doctor). I am more than
knowable within today's inventory.
I find 'mindcontent' different from 'mind' (what I don't really know) and
package it into 'mentality'. .

I have no squalm against "arithmetical reality" - a notion deduced from
(human?) math-thinking. What I mean as 'reality' (if it 'exists' - another
'if' to explain) is a belief that it SHOULD  be - as most of us think of
the world. No evidence, no facts.

Physical World (and whatever pertains to it: like 'physixs') is an
up-to-date explanation of yesterday's knowledge of some phenomena we
adjusted up to our capabilities in a 'world'-image we derived.

Existence is loosly identified in my vocabulary: whatever we MAY think of
DOES exist in our mind (see above). Not necessarily in formats we are
(capable of) handling. 3p evidence? who said so?

Time? I can't walk without crutches. My crutches don't walk alone.

Axioms? a reversed logic, not the theorems (theories?) are axiom-dependent,
the axioms are made to facilitate the theoretical 'dasein' of theorems.
Artificially.

and so on.

John M



On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:24, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Stathis and List:
>
> from time to time it is useful to recall what we are thinking behind
> 'words'. Is the *'brain'* as used in this exchange indeed*
> 'brainfunction'*? (ref. to "functionalism vs computationalism")
> To 'preserve *mind*' begs the question how it is differentiated in this
> exchange?
>
>
> ?
> "preserve minds" means that it is not differentiated. Thinks about you
> after the WM-duplication, before you open the door of the reconstitution
> box.
> Then the differentiation occurs when opening the door, as your "same mind"
> is put in two different alternate context (Washington and Moscow).
>
>
>
> Then again* 'intelligence'* is a flexible item (I start from "inter" -
> "lego" = to read between the lines, not to stick to the (written?) words
> proper).
>
>
> OK.
>
> In fact this is my criteria for a theory. The theory is 100% invariant
> with respect to the choice of wording.
>
> When we write the theory in first order logic, this is guarantied.
>
> The theory
>
> x + 0 = x
> x + s(y) = s(x + y)
>
>  x *0 = 0
>  x*s(y) = x*y + x
>
> is equivalent with the theory (assuming the equality axiom for elise (that
> "x elise x", "x elise y implies y elise x", etc.)
>
> variable1 paul johnson elise  variable1
> variable1 paul hercule(variable2) elise hercule(variable1 paul variable2)
>
>  variable1 claude johnson elise johnson
> variable1 claude hercule(varable2) elise (variable1 claude varable2 ) paul
>  variable1
>
> So if you want to see if your theory does not introduce implicit intuition
> through the choice of some wording, just change all words ...
>
> In mathematics, we are always left with "only relata", like in Mermin's QM.
>
> That is why I am not happy when Stephen says that it assumes existence. It
> could have said that it assumes popiutyscaptle. I need some axiom on that
> to say anything ...
>
> The advantage of proceeding like this is that when you prove a theorem it
> will be true in all possible interpretations of the theory.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> The *'non-computable physics'* in Penrose's brain begs the question: *"STILL"
> or "NOT AT ALL"?*
> Is the acceptance of the* NEW* a *mind*function only, (increasing the
> knowledge-base), or can be done by a hypercomputer as well (without proper
> programming for the so far unknowables' input???)
> And I hate the references to *'zombies',* whatever one thinks about them.
> I stick to my common sense* in my agnosticism*.
>
> John Mikes
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On 16 January 2014 23:08, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On 16 Jan 2014, at 09:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the
>> Intel
>> >>> CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the sense
>> that
>> >>> a
>> >>> computer can

Re: what is the definition of computation?

[John Mikes]

No matter how I try to slice it,  the 'opinions' about computation seem to
be restricted to a reductionist view of mathematical base - maybe including
some physical terms (entropy? information as 'bit' etc.) as well.
No wonder, the List-members are hooked in these domains.
I started out with the Latin word-origin:  "cum" + "putare" -  to THINK
WITH... or TOGETHER. to put 2 (or more) ideas together and derive some
solution of more than a single line. Of course it can be exploited in
math-terms as well and if somebody is anchored in the physical terms, such
will surface sooner, or later.
Which s=does not mean that the 'concept' of a computation is restricted to
such utilitarianism.

I was hoping that some "free" minds  may pick up my more extended idea and
respond in kind.
No such chance.
The learned members repeat their usual wordings - no matter what.

Stephen started a fresh initiative:
*...Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations,
simulations, representations and all other information related aspects of
the universe. It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with
the physical world*
but fell back soon, continuing
*...Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation can be a
morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces,
thermodynamics, energy, etc*
I almost cried Heureka!.
Those figments are useful aslong as they serve their purpose - to some
extent. Not as a 'Brunoish theology' of them all. Just compare our world
(?) viewed today with that of how it was viewed millennia ago. Or with the
view before 'entropy' was started to expand beyond the 2nd law's natural
processes.
Or before QM?
Who dares to draw conclusions FOREVER? how we will look at the world during
the next millennium?

As I expressed several times: I appreciate the results of OUR (conventional
- reductionst) sciences and technology, but it is an "almost" true wisdom.
John Mikes





On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:50 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:10:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> Addendum
>>>
>>> Sorry a wee typo. I meant "*Yet* presumably brain cells, when lumped
>>> together into a brain..."
>>>
>>
>> It bugs me that you can't edit after posting on here. I guess every forum
>> has its irritating features.
>>
>
> Yes. I tend to his "submit" then read through...
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: what is the definition of computation?

[John Mikes]

Dear Stephen,
I am at a loss when I want to decipher meaning from machine-talk. My
excellent old musical hearing deteriorated to shambles: I 'hear', but to
decipher the meaning I need the harmonics what I can get (not alwys) from
natural voice talking. Is there some 'readable' to explain Donald Hoffman's
talk?
I could not follow your position, but I think a broader sense may include
subchapters in the same unit.
Deduction upon mental input may include mathematical computations and
physical deductions as well.
My agnosticism is SPREAD-wise, not restricting: I find as applicable MORE
than within reductionistic science. ("Infinite complexity" of unknown
qualia).

I feel 'my' agnosticism is not ignorance-based, ignorance comes as a
contrary: I MAY find it believeable that there is much much more (and
different) from what we hold as 'possible' in our human wisdom - and all
that may have some impact on what we think is the sole (and entire?)
"world" (our model).

John M


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Dear John,
>
>   Thank you for trying to parse my gobbletygok!  Watch the Donald Hoffman
> talk, then think about what your saying.
>
> http://youtu.be/dqDP34a-epI
>
> Are you following my argument that we need a dual pair of Categories, not
> just one?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> No matter how I try to slice it,  the 'opinions' about computation seem
>> to be restricted to a reductionist view of mathematical base - maybe
>> including some physical terms (entropy? information as 'bit' etc.) as well.
>> No wonder, the List-members are hooked in these domains.
>> I started out with the Latin word-origin:  "cum" + "putare" -  to THINK
>> WITH... or TOGETHER. to put 2 (or more) ideas together and derive some
>> solution of more than a single line. Of course it can be exploited in
>> math-terms as well and if somebody is anchored in the physical terms, such
>> will surface sooner, or later.
>> Which s=does not mean that the 'concept' of a computation is restricted
>> to such utilitarianism.
>>
>> I was hoping that some "free" minds  may pick up my more extended idea
>> and respond in kind.
>> No such chance.
>> The learned members repeat their usual wordings - no matter what.
>>
>> Stephen started a fresh initiative:
>> *...Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations,
>> simulations, representations and all other information related aspects of
>> the universe. It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with
>> the physical world*
>> but fell back soon, continuing
>> *...Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation can be a
>> morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces,
>> thermodynamics, energy, etc*
>> I almost cried Heureka!.
>> Those figments are useful aslong as they serve their purpose - to some
>> extent. Not as a 'Brunoish theology' of them all. Just compare our world
>> (?) viewed today with that of how it was viewed millennia ago. Or with the
>> view before 'entropy' was started to expand beyond the 2nd law's natural
>> processes.
>> Or before QM?
>> Who dares to draw conclusions FOREVER? how we will look at the world
>> during the next millennium?
>>
>> As I expressed several times: I appreciate the results of OUR
>> (conventional - reductionst) sciences and technology, but it is an "almost"
>> true wisdom.
>> John Mikes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:50 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:10:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Addendum
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry a wee typo. I meant "*Yet* presumably brain cells, when lumped
>>>>> together into a brain..."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It bugs me that you can't edit after posting on here. I guess every
>>>> forum has its irritating features.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I tend to his "submit" then read through...
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

[John Mikes]

On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:54, John Mikes wrote:
  *Bruno*, let me use simple words (you seem to overcomplicate my
input).
  *"JM: What IS the 'mind' you PRESERVE?"*
 *BM:* My consciousness. - It means that I can surivive in the usal
clinical sense,
the brain digital replacement. I don't need to define my
consciousness to
say yes to a doctor. No more than I need to define "pain" to
the doctor who
look at me. I might need to pray, perhaps, and to hope the
doctor is serious.

*JM:Then again your ref. to the MW duplication is irrelevant for me: I do
not *
*duplicate. It goes with my answer NO to the doctor). I am more than
knowable *
*within today's inventory.*

*BM: *No problem if you believe that comp is false. I don't argue for the
truth of
comp, I just present a reasoning explaining that if comp is true, then
Plato-Plotin
gives the right framework for a TOE, and Aristotle is refuted.
(his theology and physics).
(
Bruno,  *M Y consciousness is (my) 'response to relations'* whatever show
up.
It includes lots of unknown items (with unknowable qualia?) beside the ones
handled WITHIN my brain.
So I do not trust the 'doctor's digital contraption to include  *ME -
(total) - o*nly my
temporary brainfunction, i.e. knowledge-base of mine as of today. Your
"true"
theology is a mystery to me. How "true" can it be?
Devising our physical world is a human effort due to the temporary status
of our
inventory. To think beyond it is sci-fi (cf my ref. to Liz about Jack Cohen
and J.
Stewart's "Collapse of Chaos" and "Figment of Reality" - the
Zarathustrans).

John M





On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:54, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno, let me use simple words (you seem to overcomplicate my input).
>
> What IS the *'mind'* you PRESERVE?
>
>
> My consciousness.
> It means that I can surivive in the usal clinical sense, the brain digital
> replacement.
> I don't need to define my consciousness to say yes to a doctor.
> No more than I need to define "pain" to the doctor who look at me.
> I might need to pray, perhaps, and to hope the doctor is serious.
>
>
>
>
> Then again your ref. to the MW duplication is irrelevant for me: I do not
> duplicate. (It goes with my answer NO to the doctor). I am more than
> knowable within today's inventory.
>
>
> No problem if you believe that comp is false. I don't argue for the truth
> of comp, I just present a reasoning explaining that if comp is true, then
> Plato-Plotin gives the right framework for a TOE, and Aristotle is refuted.
> (his theology and physics).
>
>
>
>
> I find 'mindcontent' different from 'mind' (what I don't really know) and
> package it into 'mentality'. .
>
> I have no squalm against "arithmetical reality" - a notion deduced from
> (human?) math-thinking.
>
>
> Arithmetical Realism is the idea that human are correct when thinking that
> the number relation are true even for the non humans.
> It is not because a human believe in x, that x is necessarily false for
> non humans. Anyway, it because I can conceive that AR is false, that I
> politely put it in the bag of the hypotheses.
>
>
>
> What I mean as 'reality' (if it 'exists' - another 'if' to explain) is a
> belief that it SHOULD  be - as most of us think of the world. No evidence,
> no facts.
>
> Physical World (and whatever pertains to it: like 'physixs') is an
> up-to-date explanation of yesterday's knowledge of some phenomena we
> adjusted up to our capabilities in a 'world'-image we derived.
>
>
> Yes, but that is why I do not assume anything being both primitive and
> physical. You make my point.
> But I need to start from some assumptions, and I use 2+2=4, and the "yes
> doctor", which links computer science and theology. The physics is then
> explanied constructively by the theology of the true machine, with true
> some technical precise sense (due to Tarski).
>
>
>
>
> Existence is loosly identified in my vocabulary: whatever we MAY think of
> DOES exist in our mind (see above). Not necessarily in formats we are
> (capable of) handling. 3p evidence? who said so?
>
>
> Eventually we have to look at nature to try to refute the theory. But you
> are right, it is not 3p evidence, but only (with comp) 1p-plural sharable
> evidences.
>
>
> Time? I can't walk without crutches. My crutches don't walk alone.
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> Axioms? a reversed logic, not the theorems (theories?) are
> axiom-dependent,

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

[John Mikes]

Stephen: thanks for your consent and the book review. I have the oher one.
John


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Dear Folks,
>
>   I agree with John's most resent remark and his recommendation of the
> books. Here is a nice review of Collapse of Chaos:
>
> http://www.thenewhumanities.net/books/Book%20Reviews44.html
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:43 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:54, John Mikes wrote:
>>   *Bruno*, let me use simple words (you seem to overcomplicate
>> my input).
>>   *"JM: What IS the 'mind' you PRESERVE?"*
>>  *BM:* My consciousness. - It means that I can surivive in the usal
>> clinical sense,
>> the brain digital replacement. I don't need to define my
>> consciousness to
>> say yes to a doctor. No more than I need to define "pain" to
>> the doctor who
>> look at me. I might need to pray, perhaps, and to hope the
>> doctor is serious.
>>
>> *JM:Then again your ref. to the MW duplication is irrelevant for me: I do
>> not *
>> *duplicate. It goes with my answer NO to the doctor). I am more than
>> knowable *
>> *within today's inventory.*
>>
>> *BM: *No problem if you believe that comp is false. I don't argue for
>> the truth of
>> comp, I just present a reasoning explaining that if comp is true, then
>> Plato-Plotin
>> gives the right framework for a TOE, and Aristotle is refuted.
>> (his theology and physics).
>> (
>> Bruno,  *M Y consciousness is (my) 'response to relations'* whatever
>> show up.
>> It includes lots of unknown items (with unknowable qualia?) beside the
>> ones
>> handled WITHIN my brain.
>> So I do not trust the 'doctor's digital contraption to include  *ME -
>> (total) - o*nly my
>> temporary brainfunction, i.e. knowledge-base of mine as of today. Your
>> "true"
>> theology is a mystery to me. How "true" can it be?
>> Devising our physical world is a human effort due to the temporary status
>> of our
>> inventory. To think beyond it is sci-fi (cf my ref. to Liz about Jack
>> Cohen and J.
>> Stewart's "Collapse of Chaos" and "Figment of Reality" - the
>> Zarathustrans).
>>
>> John M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:54, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruno, let me use simple words (you seem to overcomplicate my input).
>>>
>>> What IS the *'mind'* you PRESERVE?
>>>
>>>
>>> My consciousness.
>>> It means that I can surivive in the usal clinical sense, the brain
>>> digital replacement.
>>> I don't need to define my consciousness to say yes to a doctor.
>>> No more than I need to define "pain" to the doctor who look at me.
>>> I might need to pray, perhaps, and to hope the doctor is serious.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then again your ref. to the MW duplication is irrelevant for me: I do
>>> not duplicate. (It goes with my answer NO to the doctor). I am more than
>>> knowable within today's inventory.
>>>
>>>
>>> No problem if you believe that comp is false. I don't argue for the
>>> truth of comp, I just present a reasoning explaining that if comp is true,
>>> then Plato-Plotin gives the right framework for a TOE, and Aristotle is
>>> refuted. (his theology and physics).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I find 'mindcontent' different from 'mind' (what I don't really know)
>>> and package it into 'mentality'. .
>>>
>>> I have no squalm against "arithmetical reality" - a notion deduced from
>>> (human?) math-thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>> Arithmetical Realism is the idea that human are correct when thinking
>>> that the number relation are true even for the non humans.
>>> It is not because a human believe in x, that x is necessarily false for
>>> non humans. Anyway, it because I can conceive that AR is false, that I
>>> politely put it in the bag of the hypotheses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I mean as 'reality' (if it 'exists' - another 'if' to explain) is a
>>> belief that it SHOULD  be - as most of us think of th

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

[John Mikes]

Liz wrote Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM:



*The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s (I think?) and a
primordial explosion was theorised by Lemaitre, but until the discovery of
the microwave background in the '60s that was only one of several competing
theories put forward to explain the cosmic expansion. The CMB radiation
(more or less) clinched it for the Big Bang, since no other theory
predicted that. (Although I believe Fred Hoyle tried to explain it with
some mechanism compatible with the Steady State, but it was too ad hoc to
be convincing to anyone else.)What I meant was that the Big Bang as the
only viable explanation for the cosmic expansion was discovered by Penzias
and Wilson in the '60s. Sorry, I should have been more precise.*

Hubble (1922) THOUGHT of the expansion and this idea 'revolutionized' the
cosmic thinking. The background radiation did indeed 'explain' the idea
from a new side. The fact that "no other idea" PREDICTED that is no proof
for it's truth. Fred Hoyl's (infinite?) ex- and im-plosion idea made
another possibility, not successfully competing with the deluge of papers
based on the Hubble brainchild, which got Nobelist support by the
background radiation (Wilson? Bell Labs?) assigned and mathematically
'matched' to the previous theories.
The BB may well be the 'only' viable(?) explanation for the cosmic
expansion (with the nightmare of the inflation, necessary for it's
viability) although there are other ideas as well.
The democracy of science, however, (multitude of papers and awards) made a
washout in favor of the BB. I mentioned the play of magnetic fields theory
- causing redshift - to M. Geller who answered one laughing word: "hoax".
I wrote a narrative circumventing the BB, not to get a Nobel, but to raise
doubts, eliminating the root-question: what was BEFORE the BB? how was and
by whom decided to celebrate the first time-fraction (sec^-42?) and
differentiate 'forces' at all? God is a good answer. Then again comes:
Where was God and what was before Her? and WHY did IT decide so? The answer
is: to please the learned physicists of the 21st c. - Not of the 14th or
-5th mind you.



On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>> 2014-01-27 LizR 
>>
>> On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark  wrote:
>>>

 2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
 very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
 or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that.

>>>
>>> Dark matter was discovered in 1932; and Einstein did at least predict
>>> one form of dark energy. One thing of major significance that hasn't been
>>> discovered was the Big Bang,
>>>
>>
>> That's not true, it was discovered by Georges Lemaître in 1931... but the
>> name came from Hoyle later...
>>
>> The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s (I think?) and
> a primordial explosion was *theorised* by Lemaitre, but until the
> discovery of the microwave background in the '60s that was only one of
> several competing theories put forward to explain the cosmic expansion. The
> CMB radiation (more or less) clinched it for the Big Bang, since no other
> theory predicted that. (Although I believe Fred Hoyle tried to explain it
> with some mechanism compatible with the Steady State, but it was too ad hoc
> to be convincing to anyone else.)
>
> What I meant was that the Big Bang *as the only viable explanation for
> the cosmic expansion* was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in the '60s.
> Sorry, I should have been more precise.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

[John Mikes]

Liz, that was enjoyable. In the back of it lurks the incompatibility of
'GOD" with logics.
John


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM, LizR  wrote:

> "Would math make God obsolete?"
>
> If so, that remainds me of something...
> "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and
> without faith I am nothing."
> "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
> not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your
> own arguments, you don't. QED."
> "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in
> a puff of logic.
> "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that
> black is white, and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A news service run by philosophers

[John Mikes]

Thanx, Brent, - I subscribed to the php - did not join Twitter (what they
wanted for subscription to 'PhilosopherMail').
John M


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  My new online news source.  Forget "Fair and Balanced"; it's
> "Comtemplative and Significant".
>
> Brent
>
>
>  Original Message 
>
>
> http://www.philosophersmail.com/WHAT.php
>
>  *The Philosopher's Mail is a new news organisation, based in bureaux in
> London, NYC and Melbourne, run and staffed entirely by philosophers.*
>
>  https://twitter.com/PhilosopherMail/
>
>  *Welcome to all new readers of The Philosophers' Mail, the world's only
> daily news outlet produced by philosophers.*
>
>  *We look at the stories of the mass media, then put our own
> philosophical gloss on them, in the direction of truth, wisdom and
> complexity.*
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How to define finite

[John Mikes]

You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.

Brent

Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid
misunderstanding?
It was last time yesterday when I wrote the opposite. I do not joke about
being agnostic,
especially in cases what I 'assume', like 'the existence of a reality'. I
call it 'infinite complexity'
and would really appreciate to learn your definition of the "finite". (Not
mathematically, of course).
John M


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 2:11 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/2/2014 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 02 Feb 2014, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
>
> https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf
>
>
>
>  That can convince the inner god (the soul, S4Grz) of Brouwerism (modern
> Aristotelism about that infinity question).
>
>  But the inner God is already convinced by this.
>
>  Yet, that is not enough to explore reality.
>
>
> You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote (among many others) on Feb 1 in replying to my post of Jan 31:

*...mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that the
machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical truth. *

*Then, yes, for the ontology, IF we assume comp, then the mathematical,
even the arithmetical reality, is shown to be complete.*
*But we stay agnostic on this, as we stay agnostic on comp itself.*

*Somehow you seem to be non agnostic on the question of reality. You seem
to talk like if you knew that reality is not the arithmetical reality. *

*Then it just means that *your* theory is incompatible with the
computationalist hypothesis, and there are no problem with that (especially
that you did say recently that you don't say "yes" to the doctor (which
shows also that you are not agnostic on comp: you believe it to be false).*
*Bruno*

The first 2 par-s are contradictory. Let us forget about 'ontology' for
now, I consider it our 'figment' of what we BELIEVE is existing around us.
If the 'machine's' epistemology is RICHER than math-truth (allow me to
substitute here: math. reality) then the 'overall' (infinite, unknowable
whatever REALITY cannot be restricted to the math-reality (which - in your
choice seems to be required to be specified (=reduced in context) to
"mathematical).
I don't feel it like "non-agnostic". The 'infinite(?) reality' (what we
just do not know) without specifying restrictions, includes domains like
(your) machine epistemology and others from the infinite complexity we have
no access to today.

I "never called" my narrative-based views a THEORY. My position - in my
opinion - does not state that 'comp' is false: it sais only that it is
incomplete and cannot be applied for 'final' conclusions to draw from. I
leave open a backdoor for unknowns.

John M

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

[John Mikes]

Brent, lt me skip my frequently written argument about 'mishaps' that
happen in our 'correct' predictions (like falling off airplanes from the
sky, striking sicknesses with no known reason, failed economical
predictions etc. etc..)
Allow me to quote an old Hungarian proverb (they are smart in many cases as
folk-wisdom):
"a blind hen also finds grains"  .
That does not mean I opine all the glory of our science-technology as mere
luck.
John M


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/2/2014 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
>
>  On 01 Feb 2014, at 23:29, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Dear Bruno, allow me NOT to repeat the entire shabang with only
> 'interjecing' some remarks.
>
>  My main problem is the "theorem" ("theory, hypothesis" or call it anyway
> you wish) of which - in my opinion - we CANNOT know *all the details*EVER.
>
>
>  It is a bit fuzzy. I would like to say that I agree with this. But that
> does not change the validity or non validity of a reasoning made in that
> theoretical context.
>
>
> But it shows why we place so much credence in a theory that makes a
> surprising and correct prediction.  It means the theory entails details we
> hadn't thought of.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How to define finite

[John Mikes]

Brent and Bruno here is the main question: what would you identify*
"REALITY*" by?

Another similar* "I dunno"* question to Bruno: what would you call "* F A C
T* " - the *non** knowable TRUTH(???)*, or what we happen to know today?
Compare 'facts' - as believed millennia ago with our present imagination
(OOOPS: knowledge).
As explained by historical views our inventory of the 'infinite' world is
enriching steadily. To assume that our present one is the final and
complete would be unfounded, so postulating a "further" exploration does
not require* KNOWLEDGE* of what we want to explore. My argument stays that
if Bruno found it necessary to SPECIFY (= restrict?) *math. reality,* there
MAY BE MORE to it. (E.g. the NON-math kind?)

Speaking about agnosticism: I define mine as a belief system with presently
(still?) unknown domains/details.
Science has put itself in the position of *"I believe SOME, - I doubt SOME"*.
Physics is an ingenious Science based on the constantly changing inventory
deduced from our (latest?) representation for phenomena we got for
observation (done strictly at the level of yesterday's knowledge base).
There is a hard-to-limit (I would not call it 'infinite) amount of theories
and
in Bruno's quote below:

*"... science can be said to be based on faith in an (unknown) reality.
Then our assumptions and theories are just interrogation, and we never
pretend it is true. The exploration of reality is done with usually false
theories, that we can correct or abandon when refuted by sufficiently
repeatable facts.*
*Bruno"*

'sufficiently repeatable facts' are conclusions upon (his again) 'usually
false theories'.
10 false theories do not make 1 true..
John M


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 03 Feb 2014, at 09:18, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/3/2014 12:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/2/2014 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 02 Feb 2014, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
>
> https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf
>
>
>
>  That can convince the inner god (the soul, S4Grz) of Brouwerism (modern
> Aristotelism about that infinity question).
>
>  But the inner God is already convinced by this.
>
>  Yet, that is not enough to explore reality.
>
>
> You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
>
>
>  You don't need to know what reality is to explore it.
>
>
> Indeed.  But you must know what it is, or a lot about it, to say what is
> not enough to explore it.
>
>
> ?
>
> I can't agree more. It is part of my point. That is why I say that
> agnosticism on comp entails agnosticism on the nature of reality. It
> *might* be no more than arithmetic. And then this is cute, because it
> prevents reductionism on the first person internal psychology and theology.
> Notably: it does not eliminate persons. They have the key role, not for the
> block ontology, but for the epistemological realities, which includes the
> physical.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How to define finite

[John Mikes]

Brent wrote 2-2-14:



*Finite means finished, complete, boundedBrent*

Sounds good enough for me. Except for the 'complete': an incomplete
statement can also be finite.
Thanks

John M


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:46 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
>
> Brent
>
>  Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid
> misunderstanding?
> It was last time yesterday when I wrote the opposite.
>
>
> Here's the exchange:---
>
>  JM: I appreciate the mathematical truth (reality) but do not substitute
> it for *REALITY* (of which my agnosticism fails to know more).
>
>
>  BM: But mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that
> the machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical truth.
>
>  Then, yes, for the ontology, IF we assume comp, then the mathematical,
> even the arithmetical reality, is shown to be complete.
> But we stay agnostic on this, as we stay agnostic on comp itself.
>
>  Somehow you seem to be non agnostic on the question of reality. You seem
> to talk like if you knew that reality is not the arithmetical reality.
>
> 
>
>
>  I do not joke about being agnostic,
> especially in cases what I 'assume', like 'the existence of a reality'. I
> call it 'infinite complexity'
> and would really appreciate to learn your definition of the "finite". (Not
> mathematically, of course).
>
>
> Finite means finished, complete, bounded
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

[John Mikes]

Russell wrote Jan 26:

.*.We must make sure we have backups this time!*.

How about on paper? E.g. hard copies, like in a millennia-old * L I B R A R
Y ? *
*John Mikes*


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of those pages. I don't have
> the time now to repeat the effort :(. But I'll chime on of other
> people's efforts.
>
> We must make sure we have backups this time!
>
> PS - checked the Wayback machine, and it did only one archive of the
> wiki back in 21st of July last year - alas it got an Error 403 :(
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 04:13:40PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Unfortunately it seems the database for previous wiki page was somehow
> > deleted, but I have created a fresh version at:
> >
> > http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Main_Page
> >
> > I've also created a number of stub pages, which you can see at:
> >
> > http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Special:AllPages
> >
> > If you would like to help make the wiki more complete, feel free to write
> > one of the "wanted" pages:
> >
> > http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages
> >
> > Or flesh out any of the existing pages with more details, references,
> > links, etc.
> >
> > I also think it would be valuable to register and place a description of
> > some of your background and ideas you subscribe to on your own talk page.
> > We've fallen out of the habit of using Wei Dai's suggested "Joining
> > Post<http://www.weidai.com/everything.html>",
> > but the wiki might be a good place to registry your beliefs and
> background,
> > as well as update it as your opinions page.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR  wrote:
> >
> > > On 21 January 2014 12:49, Jason Resch  wrote:
> > >
> > >> It looks like I need to update the database connection information:
> > >>
> > >> http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/
> > >>
> > >> If others are interested, I will try to find time for that. I think as
> > >> useful as any page would be "Bio pages" of members, which state where
> > >> people fall on a number of questions, and we can trend that overtime
> to see
> > >> if anyone's mind's change.
> > >>
> > >> That would be interesting, if you do have the time.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Everything List" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> > > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

[John Mikes]

Russell, thanks for the reply.
My additional points:

1. You do not believe in technical progress (scanning SELECT hardcopy-parts
would take seconds).
2. You seem to think of 'storing' everything. Not every page is worth
'forever'. Think "errors" - "Obsolescence".
3. Whatever you 'backup' today may get out-of-technique some time and lost
again.
4. (to point 1): audio - (based?) storing may apply some newer AI with
topical comparison and REPLY - so that
   would contribute to #2 as well.
5-1000 think about alll the rest what we do not even think of today

John Mikes


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:45:43PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
> > Russell wrote Jan 26:
> >
> > .*.We must make sure we have backups this time!*.
> >
> > How about on paper? E.g. hard copies, like in a millennia-old * L I B R
> A R
> > Y ? *
> > *John Mikes*
> >
> >
>
> That's funny - I used to use paper backup copies in my early years of
> computing (think Z80 processor running CP/M with floppy disks), and
> even, on occasion, having to restore from them. I once loaded an APL
> interpreter from printed source code, which took a couple of weeks -
> particular to get it working!
>
> Restoring my laptop from a paper backup would now take several
> centuries, or require a sizable army of typists, even using OCR... not
> so useful.
>
> The only backup/archive that works is "spinning disk" - a backup that
> is copied to the current used media at all times. I'm in the process
> now of transferring my CD/DVDRom collection to spinning disk - only
> just in time I suspect.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

[John Mikes]

Dear Hal
(long time no exchange...)
don't even try to transplant progressive ideas onto our embryonic binary
kraxlwerk we are so proud of.
I have a discussion about 'computing' in the sense how (Latin) "cum" and
"putare" may come together,
of which - of course - calculating (math, arithmetix, etc.) may be part of
- not the entire territory. (AI+++?)
"Reading out the unexpressed from 'between the lines' is also part of it.
What else? ask me 500 years hence.
Who was thinking in 'genetic' terms before Mende? in Cosmology before Nic
de Cusa (Copernicus)?

Have a good time

John Mikes


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Hal Ruhl  wrote:

>
> On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:58:07 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:09:00AM -0800, Hal Ruhl wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Russell and everyone
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be
>> something
>> > in there that could help a wiki construction.
>>
>> Backup of the wiki or an email archive? Email archives exist, of
>> course, particularly through googlegroups, but seem to be difficult to
>> search, for some reason.
>>
>>
>  Hi Russell
> It is just email posts.  It may not be of use but I can try searching it
> if someone has a search criteria.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture

[John Mikes]

Brent, I 'experienced' such situation in 1944 when the Nazi Gendarme's Pol.
Police arrested me on suspicion to be part of the underground anti-Nazis
(what was true). I made them 'believe' about being an at least 'neutral'
grad student so they asked questions before torture started. I was
'believable' so they gave me 3 days to "think about it" after which I was
released with an assignment to report about my friends (what I never did).
However later on the Commis accused me of having been a 'secret agent' for
the Nazis in 1944 and I had to 'makebilieve' (again) that non of it was
true. So, they, too, let me go. (I was 3 times in the confinement of the
Commis).
I was NEVER an actor. It was skills of survivor-pressure.
The rest may be the skill in Stathis' profession.
John M



On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 9/27/2012 7:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> The perfect actor might believe it or he might just be acting. Acting
>> is top-down replacement, not bottom-up replacement. Bottom-up
>> replacement would involve replacing a part of your brain so that you
>> didn't notice any difference and no-one else noticed any difference.
>>
>
> Acting is an augmentation, not a replacement. It's a skill set. It
> involves a capacity to embody social expectations so that one's audience
> doesn't notice any difference. It's the same exact result from the third
> person view. An actor is a zombie being operated by a person.
>
>
> The idea is to replace parts so that there is no behavior difference
> *under any circumstance* - acting, as you've conceived it, is limited to a
> particular situation.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations

[John Mikes]

Russell,
you seem to be restricted by OUR model-items, so far discovered. I call
'magic' the so far undiscovered, which - however - may become known later
on. Then it is not magic.
It would be the last thing to engage with you in discussing AL, but it
seems you consider a limited one:

*RS: "(ALife researcher at least have the liberty of
researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any
particular emergent phenomenon in mind)."*
Restricted to the so far emerged ones? or those not showing up in our
limited search (fantasy)?
John M



*


*
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:51:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Roger Clough 
> wrote:
> > > Hi everything-list
> > >
> > > The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind
> > > and their relationship appears to  be "bottom-up" theories
> > > and calculations, that is, starting with the body and
> > > hoping to reach I'm not sure what.
> > >
> > > Eventually in these theories one reaches a state of complexity
> > > that apparently can only be overcome by the emergence of
> > > new properties. If this isn't magic, I don't know what it is.
> >
> > You put together pieces of metal, plastic, hydrocarbons and you get -
> > a car! If this isn't magic, I don't know what is.
> >
>
> Sarcasm aside, Roger does have a point. It is very difficult,
> bordering on impossible, in general, to specify the microphysical
> layer in just such a way as to reproduce a particular macrophysical
> phenomenon of interest. This problem is faced everyday by
> practitioners of agent-based modelling, and to a lesser extent by
> artitifical life researchers (ALife researcher at least have the liberty of
> researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any
> particular emergent phenomenon in mind).
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations

[John Mikes]

*RS:I'm not sure how that comment is restricted to anything???*

JM: I think it is: to practicality. I allowed myself to be in the ivory
tower.
J

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:58:13PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> > Russell,
> > you seem to be restricted by OUR model-items, so far discovered. I call
> > 'magic' the so far undiscovered, which - however - may become known later
> > on. Then it is not magic.
> > It would be the last thing to engage with you in discussing AL, but it
> > seems you consider a limited one:
> >
> > *RS: "(ALife researcher at least have the liberty of
> > researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any
> > particular emergent phenomenon in mind)."*
> > Restricted to the so far emerged ones? or those not showing up in our
> > limited search (fantasy)?
> > John M
> >
>
> What I meant by this, is if you assemble some system, and produce (or
> discover) some emergent phenomenon, then that would be a legitimate
> ALife study. Particularly, if there is some vague working analogy with
> life.
>
> By contrast, if you assemble an ecomomy of agents, but the emergent
> economy doesn't behave in the slightest like the economy your trying
> to model, then you can hardly claim to be doing economics.
>
> I'm not sure how that comment is restricted to anything???
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of detailed
description what the universal machine consists of and how it functions
(maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive ID. Your "lot of
examples" rather denies that you have one. And:
'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them," it may not be enough for me. I
don't really know HOW conscious I am.

I like your  counter-point in competence and intelligence.
I identified the "wisdom" (maybe it should read: the intelligence) of the
oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known circumstances -
maybe it is competence.
To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as impediment
('blinded by').

John M

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to
>> D. Deutsch.
>> Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no. Thanks
>> for copying.
>> It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
>> ramifications prima vista.
>> What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to
>> Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.
>>
>> I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the capability
>> of reading 'inter'
>> lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to realize the
>> 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical science' definitions.
>> Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines
>> (although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal
>> machine unidentified).
>>
>
>
> Unidentified?I give a lot of  examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me, and
> the octopus.
>
> In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to
> consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you.
> The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which
> case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as we are
> blinded by our competences).
>
> It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but I am
> not sure.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical limits of
>> information - the content of the actual "MODEL" of the world we live with
>> by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such
>> limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and
>> AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND.
>>
>> Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview)
>> are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite complexity BEYOND
>> our MODEL, without our knowledge and specification's power. Accordingly we
>> MAY get input from more than the factual content of the MODEL. On such
>> (unspecified) influences may be our creativity based (anticipation of
>> Robert Rosen?) what cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best
>> computing machines.
>> Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's capability
>> - not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite complexity's'
>> relations.
>>
>> Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible for
>> machines that work within such borders.
>>
>> I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent
>> readings, provided that I get to it back.
>>
>>
>> Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down
>>
>> John Mikes
>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>> .
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Creativity

[John Mikes]

On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:


The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of
the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.

Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
role, will come much further down the track.
Cheers...

JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration':
I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years.
At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further changes)
with including Robert Rosen's "anticipation" concept as applied to my own
world-view (belief!) of *agnosticism*: there is an infinite complexity we
cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time to
time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their
real and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so
far circumscribed 'world' we live in(?).
This constitutes our 'image' of our "world" - indeed the model of it we can
muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of
conventional sciences.).

Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is up
to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them as
worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure *"anticipation". *
If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail, or
succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach".
It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers,
beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say:
yesterday).
No consequences drawn.
John M

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Creativity

[John Mikes]

Why shouldn't they? JM

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> John,
>
> Your model may explain why some drugs improve creativity.
> Richard
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
> > On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >
> > The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
> > that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one
> of
> > the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
> > process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.
> >
> > Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
> > problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
> > be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
> > likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
> > information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
> > topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
> > open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
> > role, will come much further down the track.
> >
> > Cheers...
> > 
> > JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration':
> > I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years.
> > At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further
> changes)
> > with including Robert Rosen's "anticipation" concept as applied to my own
> > world-view (belief!) of agnosticism: there is an infinite complexity we
> > cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time
> to
> > time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their
> real
> > and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so far
> > circumscribed 'world' we live in(?).
> > This constitutes our 'image' of our "world" - indeed the model of it we
> can
> > muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of
> > conventional sciences.).
> >
> > Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is
> up
> > to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them
> as
> > worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure "anticipation".
> > If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail,
> or
> > succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach".
> > It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers,
> > beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say:
> > yesterday).
> > No consequences drawn.
> > John M
> >
> > --
> > 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...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

[John Mikes]

Thanks for a detailed inquisition upon my post.
It did not convince me.
#1: you postulate to ACCEPT your condition to begin with.
  I don't. ("once you agree").
#2: Sorry for 'the inside': I meant 'of the change', - while   you meant -
of myself.
#3: Arithmetical reality is a figment, just like the physical. I don't
agree in adding and substracting as fundamental in nature's doings: it may
be fundamental in HUMAN thinking.
#4: Your arguments seem to be from the INSIDE of the box - just like those
for other religions - no addition form the outside which comes only
afterwards (once you agreed).
#5: Agreeing - turning into 'disagreeing' once you change your belief in a
theory? I think a theory is not the BASIS ; it is the upper mount sitting
ON the basis.
#6: "I can always imagine other theories and that they may be correct" - so
you can ALWAYS disagree?
#7: To progress in "ONE" theory is not the goal. To progress in the least
controversial one may be.
#8: Is Universal Machine COMPUTING, or COMPUTABLE?
I thought the first one.
John M




On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  On 09 Aug 2012, at 23:48, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Let me try to shorten the maze and copy only whatever I want to reflect
> to. Sorry if it causes hardship - JM
> -----
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>   On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote:
>>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
>>  how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?*
>>>
>>>
>>> Universal machine are confronted with many problems
>>>
>> The Löbian machine knows that she is universal, and so can grasp the
> preceding paragraph, and get in that way even much more questions, and she
> can discover even more sharply her abyssal ignorance. Löbianity is the step
> where the universal machine knows that whatever she could know more, that
> will only make her more ignorant with respect to the unknown. Yet, the
> machine at that stage can also intuit more and more the reason and
> necessity of that ignorance, and with comp, study the approximate
> mathematical description of parts of it.
>
>>JM: looks to me that Univ. Mach. is a fictional charater like Alice
>> in Wunderland, equipped with whatever you need to make it work. Like (my)
>> infinite complexity.
>>
>> The difference is that once you agree on addition and multiplication, you
>> can prove the existence of universal machine, and you can bet that you can
>> implement them in the physical reality, as our concrete physical personal
>> computer, and cells, brain etc, illustrate.
>>
> *JM: don't you see the weak point in your *
> *"once you agree"?*
> *I don't know what to agree in (agnosticism) so NO PROOF*
> *- What our 'cells, brain etc. illustrate' is (our?) figment. *
>
>
>
> OK. I use "agree" with a weaker sense than you. Agreeing with x, does not
> mean that we believe x is true, but that we conjecture it when lacking
> other explanation or axiom, or for any other motivation.
>
> Agreeing only means, in science, that we are willing to share some
> hypothesis, for some time.
>
> In science we only make clear some local momentary *belief*. We never
> pretend something being true (only pseudo-scientist, or pseudo-religious
> people do that).
>
>
>
>
>
>> BM: I think that change is an experience from inside. It follows, I
>> think, from the hypothesis that we might survive through a computer
>> emulation (my working hypothesis).
>>
> *JM: If I watch you to put on weight, I am not inside you.*
>
>
> OK, but I don't see the point.
>
>
>
>
>
>   And then there is nothing a universal machine can't be more in love
>>> than ... another universal machine. And then the tendency to reproduce and
>>> multiply, in many directions, that they inherit from the numbers and which
>>> leads to even more complexity and life, I would say.
>>>
>> The arithmetical reality is full of life, populated by many sorts of
>> universal numbers, with many possible sort of relations, and this put a
>> sort of mess in the antic Platonia, and leads to transfinite unboundable
>> complexity indeed.
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>> *JM: I don't want to bore you by "where did that obscure "LIFE" come
> from? What is it?" and how do you know what a universal (machine? number?)
> thinks/feels/wants/kisses? *
> *because you are ONE? OK, but no

Re: Continuous Game of Life

[John Mikes]

Bruno:
corn starch is not a fluid (newtinian or not). It is a solid and when
dissolved in water (or whatever?) it makes a N.N.fluid -My question
about it's 'live, or not' status is:
does it provide METABOLISM  and  REPAIR ?
I doubt it.
Do not misunderstand me, please: this is not my word about :"LIFE" it
pertains to the LIVE STATUS (process) which - according to Robert Rosen's
brilliant distinction - shows a relying upon environmental (material??)
support for its substinence (called metabolism) and a mechanism to repair
damages that occur in the process of being alive.

Minds with chemistry impediment look differently at things.

John M

PS: I could not enjoy the video in the URL: I got a warning to close it
down because it slows down my browser (to 0).J

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:23:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> > They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have
>> > is, at what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you
>> > think that those blobs have experiences already?
>> >
>> > Would it give them more of a human experience if an oscillating
>> > smiley-face/frowny-face algorithm were added graphically into the
>> > center of each blob?
>>
>>
>> Here is a  "deterministic" simple phenomenon looking amazingly
>> "alive" (non-newtonian fluid):
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=3zoTKXXNQIU
>>
>> Is it alive? That question does not make sense for me. Yes with some
>> definition, no with other one. Unlike consciousness or intelligence
>> "life" is not a definite concept for me. I use usually the definition
>> "has a reproductive cycle". But this makes cigarettes and stars alive.
>> No problem for me.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> "The good news is, after this operation you'll be every bit as alive as a
> cigarette is".
>
> There are some cool videos out there of cymatic animation like that. All
> that it really tells me is that there are a limited number of morphological
> themes in the universe, not that those themes are positively linked to any
> particular private phenomenology. They are producing those patterns with a
> particular acoustic signal, but we could model it mathematically and see
> the same pattern on a video screen without any acoustic signal at all. Same
> thing happens when we model the behaviors of a conscious mind. It looks
> similar from a distance, but that's all.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/8-pjDX84CC4J.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Continuous Game of Life

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
especially in my identification as "responding to relations".
Now the "Self"? IT certainly refers to a more sophisticated level of
thinking, more so than the average (animalic?)  mind. - OR: we have no
idea. What WE call 'Self-Ccness' is definitely a human attribute because WE
identify it that way. I never talked to a cauliflower to clarify whether
she feels like having a self? (In cauliflowerese, of course).
JM

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 17 Oct 2012, at 19:19, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>> IMHO all life must have some degree of consciousness
>> or it cannot perceive its environment.
>>
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Would you say that the plants are conscious? I do think so, but I am not
> sure they have self-consciousness.
>
> Self-consciousness accelerates the information treatment, and might come
> from the need of this for the self-movie living creature having some
> important mass.
>
> "all life" is a very fuzzy notion.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 10/17/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Bruno Marchal
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37
>> Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so
 how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer to
 this means your ideas are fatally flawed.

>>>
>> I don't see this as a *fatal* flaw.  Evolution, as you've noted, is not a
>>> paradigm of efficient design.  Consciousness might just be a side-effect
>>>
>>
>> But that's exactly what I've been saying for months, unless Darwin was
>> dead wrong consciousness must be a side effect of intelligence, so a
>> intelligent computer must be a conscious computer. And I don't think Darwin
>> was dead wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Darwin does not need to be wrong. Consciousness role can be deeper, in
>> the "evolution/selection" of the laws of physics from the coherent dreams
>> (computations from the 1p view) in arithmetic.
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 
>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 
>
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: AGI

[John Mikes]

Bruno: my apologies for this late late reply, I am slow to decipher the
listpost from the daily inundation of Roger-stuff so I miss some more
relevant list-post sometimes.

You wrote about the U-M:
*"...an entity capable of computing all partial computable functions..."*
**
I would be cautios with "all" since we know only SOME.
I plead ignorance to the difference of a Loeb and another type(?) Univ.
Machine. Is the Leobian restricted? In what sense? BTW: What is
'universal'?
I would think twice to deem something as

*"... it might be intrinsically complex..."*
**
*EVERYTHING* is intrinsically (too!) complex. We just take simplified
versions - adjusted to OUR mindful capabilities.

*"intelligence vs competence"?*
**
The 'oldies' (from yesterday back to the Greeks/Indians etc.) were
'competent' in the actual (then) inventory of the knowledge base of their
time. That gave their 'intelligence' (the way I defined it) so: no
controversy.

*Bohm* discussed with Krishnamurty before his association in London with
Hiley. The posthumous book the latter wrote in their combined(?) authorship
includes Bohm's earlier physical stances (~1952)  even before his Brazilian
escape.
I do not accuse Hiley of improperness, but he left out all the
Krishnamurtian mystique embraced by Bohm. Granted: Bohm taught later
advanced physical science in London but as far as I know never went back on
his interim (call it: metaphysical?) philosophy.

John M



On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> John,
>
>  On 09 Oct 2012, at 22:22, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Bruno,
> examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of
> detailed description what the universal machine consists of and how it
> functions (maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive ID. Your
> "lot of examples" rather denies that you have one.
>
>
> A universal machine is any entity capable of computing all partial
> computable functions. There are many, and for many we can prove that they
> are universal machine. For many we can't prove that, or it might be
> intrinsically complex to do so.
>
> A Löbian machine is a universal machine which "knows", in a weak technical
> precise sense, that they are universal.
>
> Same remark as above, we can prove that some machine are Löbian, but we
> might not been able to recognize all those who are.
>
>
>
>  And:
> 'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them," it may not be enough for me. I
> don't really know HOW conscious I am.
>
>
> Nor do I. Nor do they, when you listened to them, taking into account
> their silence.
>
>
>
> I like your  counter-point in competence and intelligence.
> I identified the "wisdom" (maybe it should read: the intelligence) of the
> oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known circumstances -
> maybe it is competence.
>
>
> You meant "intelligence"? I would agree.
>
> You know I prefer the Bohm who discuss with Krishnamurti, than the Bohm
> (the same person to be sure) who believes in quantum hidden variables.
>
>
>  To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as impediment
> ('blinded by').
>
>
> Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that, the more she
> know, the more she is ignorant.
>
> Knowledge is only a lantern on a very big unknown. The more light you put
> on it, the bigger it seems.
>
> But we can ask question (= develop theories). And we can have experiences.
>
>
> Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that the more she can
> be intelligent, the more she can be stupid.
>
> And that competence is quite relative, but can be magnified uncomputably,
> but also (alas) unpredictably, with many simple heuristics, like:
>
> - tolerate errors,
> - work in union,
> - encourage changes of mind,
>
> etc.  (By results of Case and Smith, Blum and Blum, Gold, Putnam, etc.).
> reference in the biblio of "conscience et mécanisme", in my url.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> John M
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to
>>> D. Deutsch.
>>> Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no.
>>> Thanks for copying.
>>> It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
>>> ramifications prima vista.
>>> What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to
>>> Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.
>>>
>>> I have my (a

Re: Interactions between mind and brain

[John Mikes]

Hi, Stephen,
you wrote some points in accordance with my thinking (whatever that is
worth) with one point I disagree with:
if you want to argue a point, do not accept it as a base for your argument
(even negatively not). You do that all the time. (SPK? etc.) -
My fundamental question: what do you (all) call *'mind*'?
(Sub: does the *brain* do/learn mind functions? HOW?)
(('experimentally observed' is restricted to our present level of
understanding/technology(instrumentation)/theories.
Besides: "miraculous" is subject to oncoming explanatory novel info, when
it changes into merely 'functonal'.))

To fish out some of my agreeing statements:
*"Well, I don't follow the crowd"*
Science is no voting matter. 90+% believed the Flat Earth.
**
*"... Alter 1 neuron and you might not have the same mind..."
*(Meaning: the 'invasion(?)' called 'altering a neuron' MAY change the
functionalist's complexity *IN THE MIND!-* which is certainly beyond our
knowable domain. That makes the 'hard' hard. We 'like' to explain DOWN
everything in today's knowable terms. (Beware my agnostic views!)

"Computation" of course I consider a lot more than that (Platonistic?)
algorithmic calculation on our existing (and so knowable?) embryonic
device. I go for the Latin orig.: to THINK together - mathematically, or
beyond. That mat be a deficiency from my (Non-Indo-European) mother tongue
where the (improper?) translatable equivalent closes to the term
"expectable". "I am counting on your visit tomorrow".

* "I strongly believe that computational complexity plays a huge role in
many aspects of the hard problem of consciousness and that the Platonic
approach to computer science is obscuring solutions as it is blind to
questions of resource availability and distribution."*
(and a lot more, do we 'know' about them, or not (yet).

*"Is the brain strictly a classical system? - No,..."
*The *"BRAIN"* may be - as a 'Physical-World' figment of our bio-physio
conventional science image, but its mind-related  function(?) (especially
the hard one) is much more than a 'system': ALL 'parts' inventoried in
explained functionality).
And: I keep away from the beloved "thought-experiments" invented to make
uncanny ideas practically(?) feasible.

*"...As I see it, there is no brain change without a mind change and vice
versa. The mind and brain are dual,..." *
Thanks, Stephen, originally I thought there may be some (tissue-related)
minor brain-changes not affecting the mind of which the 'brains' serves as
a (material) tool in our "sci"? explanations.
Reading your post(s) I realized that it is a complexity and ANY change in
one part has consequences in the others.
So whatever 'part' we landscape as the *'neuronal brain'* it is
still part of the wider complexity unknowable.

Have a good trip onward

John M


On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

> On 10/21/2012 7:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Stephen P. King 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  If there is a top-down effect of the mind on the atoms then there we
 would expect some scientific evidence of this. Evidence would
 constitute, for example, neurons firing when measurements of
 transmembrane potentials, ion concentrations etc. suggest that they
 should not. You claim that such anomalous behaviour of neurons and
 other cells due to consciousness is widespread, yet it has never been
 experimentally observed. Why?

>>>
>>> Hi Stathis,
>>>
>>>  How would you set up the experiment? How do you control for an
>>> effect
>>> that may well be ubiquitous? Did you somehow miss the point that
>>> consciousness can only be observed in 1p? Why are you so insistent on a
>>> 3p
>>> of it?
>>>
>> A top-down effect of consciousness on matter could be inferred if
>> miraculous events were observed in neurophysiology research. The
>> consciousness itself cannot be directly observed.
>>
>
> Hi Stathis,
>
> This would be true only if consciousness is separate from matter, such
> as in Descartes failed theory of substance dualism. In the dual aspect
> theory that I am arguing for, there would never be any "miracles" that
> would contradict physical law. At most there would be statistical
> deviations from classical predictions. Check out
> http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/**ratmech.pdffor
>  details. My support for this theory and not materialism follows from
> materialism demonstrated inability to account for 1p. Dual aspect monism
> has 1p built in from first principles. BTW, I don't use the term "dualism"
> any more as what I am advocating seems to be too easily confused with the
> failed version.
>
>
>>  I don't mean putting an extra module into the brain, I mean putting
 the brain directly into the same configuration it is put into by
 learning the language in the normal way.

>>>
>>>  How might we do that? Alter 1 neuron and you might not have the same
>>> mind.
>>>
>> When you learn

Re: Re: Re: Solipsism = 1p

[John Mikes]

Stathis:

IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
(SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
'unknown' (see the steps forward in cultural history of the sciences?) -
accordingly a 'programmed' human may have resources beyond it's given
"hardware" content.

John M

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> wrote:
>
> > Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would
> all
> > be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on the computer
> itself
> > rather than the programming, that would be a good sign.
>
> A computer cannot defy its programming but nothing whatsoever can defy
> its programming. What you do when you program a computer, at the basic
> level, is put its hardware in a particular configuration. The hardware
> can then only move into future physical states consistent with that
> configuration. "Defying its programming" would mean doing something
> *not* consistent with its initial state and the laws of physics.
> That's not possible for  - and you have explicitly agreed with this,
> saying I misunderstood you when I claimed otherwise - either a
> computer or a human.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Solipsism = 1p

[John Mikes]

Stathis,
do you think "Lucy" had the same (thinking?) hardware as you have? are you
negating (human and other) development (I evade 'evolution') as e.g. the
famous cases of mutation?  Is all that R&D a reshuffling of what WAS
already knowable?
Maybe my agnosticism dictates different potentials at work from your
Idon'tknowwhat position, but in my belief system there is - beyond our
existing world-model - an "infinite complexity" of unknowable
whoknowswhat-s infiltrating into our knowable inventory in ways adjusted to
our capabilities. THAT I cannot assign to an algorithmic machine.
Then again you write: "UNIVERSE" - a word usually applied to our part of a
'physical world' - not the Everything of which it may be part of. My
(assumed?) infinite complexity is not restricted to physical units of our
universe.
Accordingly I see some definitional discrepancy between our conclusions.

John Mikes

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
> > Stathis:
> >
> > IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
> > programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
> > (SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
> > 'unknown' (see the steps forward in cultural history of the sciences?) -
> > accordingly a 'programmed' human may have resources beyond it's given
> > "hardware" content.
> >
> > John M
>
> How can a human exceed his hardware? Everything he does must be due to
> the hardware plus input from the environment, same as the computer,
> same as everything else in the universe.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Solipsism = 1p

[John Mikes]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever we do
>> is
>> > what the laws of physics *actually are*. Your assumptions about the
>> laws of
>> > physics are 20th century legacy ideas based on exterior manipulations
>> of
>> > exterior instruments to measure other exterior phenomena.
>>
>> Whatever we do is determined by a small set of rules,
>
>
> No. What we as humans do is determined by human experiences and human
> character, which is not completely ruled externally. We participate
> directly. It could only be a small set of rules if those rules include 'do
> whatever you like, whenever you have the chance'.
>
> **
*JM: who is that agency "we"? having 'human experiences and human
character'? *


>   the rules being
>> as you say what matter actually does and not imposed by people or
>> divine whim.
>
>
> Matter is a reduced shadow of experiences. Matter is ruled by people and
> people are ruled by matter. Of the two, people are the more directly and
> completely real phenomena.
>
>
> This is correct, but not obvious at all (for aristotelicians), and yet a
> logical consequence of comp, with "people" replaced by Löbian universal
> machine.
>
> This has been be put in a constructive form, with computer science. It
> makes comp (+ reasonable definition of knowledge, observation, in the UD
> context) testable, and already tested on non trivial relations between what
> is observable (quantum logic).
>
> The science and the math already exist.
>
> All machines looking inward deep enough will develop a non comp intuition,
> and some can go beyond.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> I really don't understand where you disagree with me,
>> since you keep making statements then pulling back if challenged.
>
>
> I don't see where I am pulling back. I disagree with you in that to you
> any description of the universe which is not matter in space primarily is
> inconceivable. I am saying that what matter is and does is not important to
> understanding consciousness itself. It is important to understanding
> personal access to human consciousness, i.e. brain health, etc, but
> otherwise it is consciousness, on many levels and ranges of quality, which
> gives rise to the appearance of matter and not the other way around.
>
> Do
>> you think the molecules in your brain follow the laws of physics, such
>> as they may be?
>
>
> The laws of physics have no preference one way or another whether this
> part of my brain or that part of my brain is active. I am choosing that
> directly by what I think about. If I think about playing tennis, then the
> appropriate cells in my brain will depolarize and molecules will change
> positions. They are following my laws. Physics is my servant in this case.
> Of course, if someone gives me a strong drink, then physics is influencing
> me instead and I am more of a follower of that particular chemical event
> than a leader.
>
>
>> If so, then the behaviour of each molecule is
>> determined or follows probabilistic laws, and hence the behaviour of
>> the collection of molecules also follows deterministic or
>> probabilistic laws.
>
>
> I am determining the probabilities myself, directly. They are me. How
> could it be otherwise?
>
>
>> If consciousness, sense, will, or whatever else is
>> at play in addition to this then we would notice a deviation from
>> these laws.
>
>
> Not in addition to, sense and will are the whole thing. All activity in
> the universe is sense and will and nothing else. Matter is only the sense
> and will of something else besides yourself.
>
>
>> That is what it would MEAN for consciousness, sense, will
>> or whatever else to have a separate causal efficacy;
>
>
> No. I don't know how many different ways to say this: Sense is the only
> causal efficacy there ever was, is, or will be. Sense is primordial and
> universal. Electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak forces are only
> examples of our impersonal view of the sense of whatever it is we are
> studying secondhand.
>
>
>> absent this, the
>> physical laws, whatever they are, determine absolutely everything that
>> happens, everywhere, for all time. Which part of this do you not agree
>> with?
>>
>
> None of it. I am saying there are no physical laws at all. There is no law
> book. That is all figurative. What we have thought of as physics is as
> crude and simplistic as any ancient mythology. What we see as physical laws
> are the outermost, longest lasting conventions of sense. Nothing more. I
> think that the way sense works is that it can't contradict itself, so that
> these oldest ways of relating, once they are established, are no longer
> easy to change, but higher levels of sense arise out of the loopholes and
> can influence lower levels of 

Re: Self-ascription and "Perfect Model Model"

[John Mikes]

Brent, I think if a 'model' is *complete*, it is not a model, it is the
real thing.
Consequently it (as the real thing) is not provable from within - Godel, or
not. (dON'T ASK ME ABOUT "real", please )
JM

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 10/29/2012 10:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>> Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
>> Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
>> ..(quot4s deleted)
>
> If the model is complete it must already include us - as well as what we
> will think about it and do with it.  But then this will run into Godelian
> incompleteness.  If it is true it will be unprovable within the model.
>
> Brent
>
>
>  So apparently we need to have something in addition to what science has
>> given us here. The extra is the self-ascription of location."
>>
>> p. 83 "Have we now landed in a dilemma for our view of science as
>> paradigmatically objective? If we say that the self-ascription is a simple,
>> objective statement of fact, then science is inevitably doomed to be
>> objectively incomplete. If instead we say it is something irreducibly
>> subjective, then we have also admitted a limit to objectivity, we have let
>> subjectivity into science."
>>
>> Evgenii
>> --
>> http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/bas-**c-van-fraassen
>>
>>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Solipsism = 1p

[John Mikes]

*Bruno*, I cannot keep up with argumentation that includes opposites to ALL
tenets previously stated. Who knows what kind of *'hardwire"* does a brain
have (I mean: not the physiological tissue-construct, but the complex brain*
function* also called 'brain). Anatomists, physiologists, neurologists and
other conservative scientists know only peripheral characteristics and
details.
 The "hard problem" functionality (mentality etc.) is still in our dreams.
We (I at least) have not cracked (yet?) YOUR  *'universal machine'*thinking.

If* Stathis* guesses that Lucy used only ~0,1% of her (available?) mental
capabilities (=hardware) in HER lifestyle, I don't think 99.9% of her
brain-hardware was unused and was a mere filling to her skull. That would
not click with nature's so far observed economy. That also would not jibe
with the development of new species with increased capabilities from the
simpler ones in their ancestors.
Development seems to work in concerted steps - one requirement brings about
another one that helps - and so on. And this - IMO - is  *B O T H
*hardware and software, the discerned two components which I consider our
human artifacts - borrowed from our primitive, embryonic binary kraxlwerk
computer - rather than being original distinctions (terms?) of the infinite
natural complexity.

*Question to Bruno*: can *YOU* 'reprogram' a universal computer? does it
have a closed (though maybe immense) finite hardware and a changeable
software?

John M

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> John,
>
> A fixed universal machine (some hardwired one, like a brain or a laptop)
> can emulate a self-modifying universal machine, even one which modifies
> itself "completely".
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2012, at 23:08, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Stathis:
>
> IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
> programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
> (SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
> 'unknown' (see the steps forward in cultural history of the sciences?) -
> accordingly a 'programmed' human may have resources beyond it's given
> "hardware" content.
>
> John M
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would
>> all
>> > be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on the computer
>> itself
>> > rather than the programming, that would be a good sign.
>>
>> A computer cannot defy its programming but nothing whatsoever can defy
>> its programming. What you do when you program a computer, at the basic
>> level, is put its hardware in a particular configuration. The hardware
>> can then only move into future physical states consistent with that
>> configuration. "Defying its programming" would mean doing something
>> *not* consistent with its initial state and the laws of physics.
>> That's not possible for  - and you have explicitly agreed with this,
>> saying I misunderstood you when I claimed otherwise - either a
>> computer or a human.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> --
>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

[John Mikes]

Dear Hal,
nice to read you again after all those years.
Life is a topic I brought up many times (as a question of course) and have
only a vague idea - opposing the conventional scientific stance based on
the carbon-etc. foundational "bio"/"physiological restrictions.

In my *speculations* 'life' is *much more* than a material-based
process-type - not to mention upon definitions of our (classic?) physical
terms.
I had a hard time to draw the line between a pretty open life concept and
my thinking about *consciousness* (which is in my view something like:
 *"response to relations" * without a proper definition of relation.

I appreciate *your* rule to keep the definitions congruent to those in the
physical sciences: I step beyond those in my agnostic view, considering an
infinite complexity as the 'Everything' from which some details keep
filtrating into our knowledge-base (mind content?) and we construct from
these the 'model' of our (physical?) world (continuously) over the
millennia.   I do not argue: I try to spell out whatever I can for the
argument.
(I find your restriction of your 'energy' to mass too narrow, since mass
and matter are figment of our physical explanations (mostly by tools of
mathematics)  about phenomena originally poorly understood. (Cf: mental
energy). Also I find the inclusion of 'dark energy' premature which serves
to explain (round up?) some mathematical mishaps in our conventional
cosmology to complement them by some dark matter.

I like your #5.

In #6 I find you just as vague as in your definition under #1 where
'ability" is a hard-to-apply quale in physically stated science-talk. -
"Since"? it may be the proposition ti discuss. Also it does not state how
the 'flow' turns into life - or what it may be to begin with.

To Stephen's excellent remark I have one word:

*1.  Nice post! Any way that the energy/force/work relation can be
considered as a broken symmetry restoration concept?*
*2.  Isn't the maximum entropy of a system a type of symmetry, where all
equiprobable states "look the same"?*
*
*
In my speculative story of a "logically lesser mind-boggling" explanation
about the Big Bang fables (around 1990) I presumed the "everything" (called
it Plenitude after Plato) as a (now I use newer language) complexity in
free exchange relation and perfect equilibrium (symmetry?), where
compilations of 'similars' (whatever - unidentified) are not excludible,
consequently 'knots' occur. Such knots - indeed violations of the perfect
symmetry - dissipate back into the homogeneity. I called such 'knots
universes and the re-dissipation their life-path.
I assumed a tendency for restoring the symmetry - something what our
physicists may call 'energy'. The result you may call the maximum entropy
(which is abused in conventional sciences into diverse figments, partial
changes - like e.g. the 2nd law).
Please forgive me the unscientific views in my agnostic stance. I consider
ALL we know a partial input of the "Everything" - adjusted to the
capabilities of our mind.
Beyond that ("The Model")  the rest of the everything is also influencing
OUR experienced changes without our knowledge WHAT they are and HOW they
work. During my successful 50 year career in polymer sciences I believed in
atoms, forces, molecular connections & other figments. Then I became
agnostic.

With best regards

John Mikes



On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Hal Ruhl  wrote:

> Hi Everyone:
>
> I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a
> discussion regarding the aspects of what we call “life” in our universe
> starting in a simple manner as follows: [terms not defined herein have the
> usual “Laws of Physics” definition]
>
> 1) Definition (1):  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force.
>
> 2) There are several types of energy currently known:
>
>  a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M <=> E/(c*c)]
>  b) Gravitational
>  c) Electromagnetic
>  d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
>  e) Dark Energy
>
> 3) Definition (2) Work (W)  Work is the flow of energy amongst the various
> types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or
> amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a
> force to a mass.
>
> 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types
> can’t be reestablished and the new configuration can’t do as much work as
> the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics]
>
> 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take
> place immediately.
>
> 6) Conclusion (1):  Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the
> possibility of life exists life will ap

Re: AGI

[John Mikes]

Bruno:
you got me.
I wrote about things we cannot know - we have no capability to think of it
- and you deny that based on products of the human mind (math - logic)
saying YES, we can know everything (that we or our products DO know).
You claimed to be agnostic ("more than myself") - now I don't see it.
*
As I stated: Bohm never went back to his metaphysical ideas while in London
and Hiley - posthumusly - composed their book upon this (London) period, so
you I doubt whether you can read anything in THAT book -
JM

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Oct 2012, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno: my apologies for this late late reply, I am slow to decipher the
>> listpost from the daily inundation of Roger-stuff so I miss some more
>> relevant list-post sometimes.
>>
>> You wrote about the U-M:
>> "...an entity capable of computing all partial computable functions..."
>>
>> I would be cautios with "all" since we know only SOME.
>>
>
> Not with Church Thesis (CT). It is here that a "miracle occur". For all
> notion of "all" in mathematics, we can refute the universality pretension
> by a tool known as diagonalisation. But there is one exception: the notion
> of computation, which seems (and "is" with CT) close for the
> diagonalization. this is how, mainly, the mathematical discovery of the
> universal machine arrived.
>
>
>
>
>
>  I plead ignorance to the difference of a Loeb and another type(?) Univ.
>> Machine. Is the Leobian restricted?
>>
>
> In logic; restriction on the axioms leads to unrestriction of the models.
> and vice versa. Loebian machines are
>
> - universal (for computability)
> - they have the cognitive ability to know (in some sense) that they are
> universal (and thus they know that they are infinitely ignorant, even if
> only with respect to the arithmetical truth).
>
> They have less models, but more knowledge, which of course lessen the
> models.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  In what sense? BTW: What is 'universal'?
>> I would think twice to deem something as
>>
>
> It is a precise mathematical notion, and it correspond indeed to what
> computers are, but also, brain, cells, etc. Even without comp (comp assume
> that brain cells are not more than universal, at some level).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> "... it might be intrinsically complex..."
>>
>> EVERYTHING is intrinsically (too!) complex. We just take simplified
>> versions - adjusted to OUR mindful capabilities.
>>
>> "intelligence vs competence"?
>>
>> The 'oldies' (from yesterday back to the Greeks/Indians etc.) were
>> 'competent' in the actual (then) inventory of the knowledge base of their
>> time. That gave their 'intelligence' (the way I defined it) so: no
>> controversy.
>>
>> Bohm discussed with Krishnamurty before his association in London with
>> Hiley. The posthumous book the latter wrote in their combined(?) authorship
>> includes Bohm's earlier physical stances (~1952)  even before his Brazilian
>> escape.
>> I do not accuse Hiley of improperness, but he left out all the
>> Krishnamurtian mystique embraced by Bohm. Granted: Bohm taught later
>> advanced physical science in London but as far as I know never went back on
>> his interim (call it: metaphysical?) philosophy.
>>
>
> I should certainly reread this. Want to comment, but I am not sure, need
> to reread some part. I will see.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
>
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

[John Mikes]

Hi, Hal,
and thanks for your reply. I don't feel up to discuss YOUR ideas: as I
touched I WAS a polymer(chem) scientist as long as I lost my faith in the
conventional views (giving place to agnosticism upon the infinite
complexity I call "everything". So consider my responses 'second rate' -
ideas you may or may not consider indeed.
## Ability: seems to me you value the potential energy higher than the
rest.

##Mass - I am lost. (massive as well). When I tried to "go down" to the
bases of it, I lost all massiveness: mass less concepts with physical items
attached. All in our conventional science terms: human thinking within the
model we actually carry (different at all times).

##Dark energy (matter?) - thanks for not crucifying me for such un-science.

## - "E"??? do you have any idea how to identify electricity? (This is not
my vendetta against it for the 5 days this week when we missed it to
Sandy). Luckily we got it back but I have bad vibes.

## We NEED Strong and weak forces to maintain our figment of matter.
So we created them and calculate them to satisfy what we think. I don't
deny an atomic bomb explosion, but the explanation is premature.
We have a fantastic technology - ALMOST good (except for some unexpected
mishaps, accidents, sicknesses, wars, imperfections.)

##Your Conclusions to 6 are perfectly identified by the terms science is
using (work?). I call them figments based on our present partial knowledge
of EVERYTHING - subject to be changed when our knowledge -inventory grows.
It was different 1000 years ago and maybe yesterday.
Your sentences are involved, I need more time to digest them better.
(As I recall our last discussion years ago, I stopped short when you
started to resort more and more into engineering lingo what I could not
match. That was the time when my agnostic ideas emerged and I could not
cope with the human thinking firmness of the engineering know-it-all.)
My principle is  -  "I dunno".

## LIFE: I feel with 'my' translation I may be close to your position -
maybe a bit wider in scope. I did not boil it down (so far!) to energy
change (flow). Reproduction is nonexistent, except in prokaryotes, the
offspring of 2 heterosexual parents into a 3rd entity maybe 'procreation',
but not *reproduction* of any of the parents. Just think of the personal
DNA. I surprised already some reputable biologists/physiologists.
Like a physicist's characterisation of energy(activity!) I found for life -
*process* the M&R (metabolism and repair) description of Robert Rosen the
closest - not an identification of the *term* either.

Besides I place a 'life(process)' into much wider bounds than OUR human
chemistry of carbon compound-, even non-carbon compound live-
bio-chem-processes in our terrestrial circumstances. (See resp to ##9)

##to7: I "feel" the 'universe' is our abode among innumerable others in a
Multiverse - composed of non-identical ones, MAYBE not so simplistic ones
as ours (we have no contact to others): ours is founded upon two ordinates
(space and time) making it a 3D view with changes between the two.
Conventional sciences cannot afford to step out from such framework
(Sci.Am. or else). That would be 'unscientific' and 'imaginary'.

## "Heat Death" - the perfect and infinite entropy Stephen referred to - is
akin to (my) re-distribution into the - OK, let's say: - perfect entropy of
MY PLENITUDE from which the universe(s) popped out because of some
"un-entropic" complexity formation - to re-smoothing again into it.
The Black Hole is a related idea, perverted into Terrestrial Physics. (And
so we get again closer in thinking - Ha Ha).

## to 9 I have objections. I cannot imagine (maybe my mistake) evolution
without a goal, a final aim which would require an intelligent design to
approach it. (I may have one: the re-distribution into the Plenitude). My
way (as of yesterday) is the ease-and-potential path of changes allowed by
the available configurations (relations) when a change occurs.
NO RANDOM, it would make a grits out of nature. Even authors with high
preference on random treatises withdrew into a "conditional random" when I
attacked the term. Conditionality kills random of course.
So in my terms: NO random mutations, (especially not FOR survival) I call
'evolution' the HISTORY of our universe. The unsuccessful mutants die, the
successful go on - science detects them in its snapshots taken and explains
them religiously. (Survival of the fittest - the Dinosaur was fit when it
got extinct by the change in circumstances).
I accept ONE random (in mathematical puzzles): "take ANY number..."

Your "lower, but not upper bound" is highly appreciable. Thanks.

I apologize for my haphazard remarks upon prima vista reading. The
list-discussion is not a well-founded scientific dis

Fwd: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

[John Mikes]

dear Hal and Stephen,
I wanted to complete my response to both of you when at the point below a
blip in the juice blanked out my internet-connection and kidnapped the text
I had to that point.
I don't complete it right away, read first whatever comes in - to
 facilitate a more comprehensive post.

I can include now that Hal stepped out of my 'domain' by - seemingly -
restricting the 'live' to this planet while I extend it to everything that
has a 'response' to relations (if you still think in a 'physical' world:
el. charges etc.)
I like to imply even the still unknown/unknowable infinite existence.
That's what I call "EVERYTHING". (I cannot, of course, but I accept my
ignorance).
John M


Dear Stephen,
I did not promise answers to questions arisen by my thoughts.
Agnosticism gives you such comfort. However I try...

First: I am not sure what to call the "Selective" aspect. In my view the
change (mutaton?) is selective in two ways:
1. In lieu of a RANDOM walk: The given circumstances provide a potential
(including those* we don't know about* as well) with unknown trend which to
accept and which not. (In this part I still hesitate with newer ideas (free
will, force of prayer and other widely believed marvels not picked up by
myself) whether a 'mental(?)' *urge* ('m-energy?) can influence even
facilitate the acceptance of one particular potential way over another?)
((random walk could include our *evolution* back into trilobites AGAIN.))
 -   a n d   -
2. Whether the variants i.e. results of the ongoing mutation are viable in
the circumstances they get into (= fit enough to survive?)


The 'shaping' of polymer molecules raised a question in my mind - even at
the time when I beleved in (and exercised) synthesis of such: kid peptalk
mentions 'secondary forces' (van der Waals?) of which we have vague ideas
but speak a lot. The multitude of carriers of such 'forces' MAY well
overwhelm the skeleton-firmness of primary valences - who knows?  In such
case the 'shaping' and 'form' is subject to effects still unknown: those
additional influences from outside our 'model' that seep in over the
millennia. (Mad Cow disease may be in such domain.)
I am very hesitant to make statements where the still unknowable effects
may have a role. Conventional science applies statistics of the KNOWN.








On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

> On 11/4/2012 12:09 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  snip
>>
>
>  ## to 9 I have objections. I cannot imagine (maybe my mistake) evolution
>> without a goal, a final aim which would require an intelligent design to
>> approach it. (I may have one: the re-distribution into the Plenitude). My
>> way (as of yesterday) is the ease-and-potential path of changes allowed by
>> the available configurations (relations) when a change occurs.
>> NO RANDOM, it would make a grits out of nature. Even authors with high
>> preference on random treatises withdrew into a "conditional random" when I
>> attacked the term. Conditionality kills random of course.
>> So in my terms: NO random mutations, (especially not FOR survival) I call
>> 'evolution' the HISTORY of our universe. The unsuccessful mutants die, the
>> successful go on - science detects them in its snapshots taken and explains
>> them religiously. (Survival of the fittest - the Dinosaur was fit when it
>> got extinct by the change in circumstances).
>> I accept ONE random (in mathematical puzzles): "take ANY number..."
>>
>> Your "lower, but not upper bound" is highly appreciable. Thanks.
>>
>> I apologize for my haphazard remarks upon prima vista reading. The
>> list-discussion is not a well-founded scientific discourse upon new ideas.
>> Most people tell what they formulated over years. A reply is many times
>> instantaneous.
>>
>>  snip
>
>> [HR] 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no
>> upper
>> bound.
>>
> snip
>
> Dear John,
>
> I wanted to make a remark on just this part of your post as I need to
> ask a question. Why is the Selective aspect of evolution almost completely
> ignored? It is easy to talk about mutations and models of them, such as
> random walks - which I favor!, but what about the selection aspect? what
> about how the Tree of Life is almost constantly pruned by events that kill
> off or otherwise blunt growth in some directions as opposed to others?
>
> My question to you is specific. How do polymers mold themselves to
> local parameters that influence their molecules? What determines their
> shape? Is there a deterministic explanation of the shape of

Re: Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems

[John Mikes]

Dear Russell,

I have my doubts about "causality" as a *complete* term: our 'systems', cf:
ecosystem etc. include the up-to-date inventory of knowables as in our
existing "MODEL" of the world - which grows over the millennia
stepwise. (The 'cause' of the lightning is no more the "ire" of Zeus).

Whatever we include as 'causing' a change (whatever) is the portion of its
entailments selectable from said inventory (of yesterday). This causes the
uncertainty and occasional mishaps in our "world". Besides: our terms are
proportionate, content and qualia (may be) incomplete restricted to said
inventory, so the partial entailment we observe may seem satisfactory to
the actual 'model-item' we carry. (((How's THAT with AL?)))
--
 We had a little exchange on "random" earlier when you resorted to the term
(as I recall): as *provisonal (or conditional?) random* that may occur *under
the given conditions only*.
((I just wrote to Hal R. that a "random walk" in evolution could lead *us,
humans* (back???) - maybe - to *DE*-velop into trilobites. Why not?))

John Mikes


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> The distinction between correlation and causality occasionally comes
> up in this discussion group, so I thought this paper might be of
> interest.
>
> Disclaimer - I haven't read it, but it is published in Science, and
> one of the authors (Robert May) I have the utmost respect for.
>
> Let me know if you can't find a non paywalled version. I will probably
> be able to get it from my institution's e-library.
>
>
> - Forwarded message from Complexity Digest Administration <
> comdigad...@turing.iimas.unam.mx> -
>
>
>
> Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems
>
>   Identifying causal networks is important for effective policy and
> management recommendations on climate, epidemiology, financial regulation,
> and much else. We introduce a method, based on nonlinear state space
> reconstruction, that can distinguish causality from correlation. It extends
> to nonseparable weakly connected dynamic systems (cases not covered by the
> current Granger causality paradigm). The approach is illustrated both by
> simple models (where, in contrast to the real world, we know the underlying
> equations/relations and so can check the validity of our method) and by
> application to real ecological systems, including the controversial
> sardine-anchovy-temperature problem.
>
>
> Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems
> George Sugihara, Robert May, Hao Ye, Chih-hao Hsieh, Ethan Deyle, Michael
> Fogarty, Stephan Munch
>
> Science 26 October 2012:
> Vol. 338 no. 6106 pp. 496-500
>
> http://unam.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0eb0ac9b4e8565f2967a8304b&id=9e44b3450a&e=d38efa683e
>
> See it on Scoop.it (
> http://www.scoop.it/t/papers/p/3161484398/detecting-causality-in-complex-ecosystems)
> , via Papers (http://www.scoop.it/t/papers)
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

your remark to me

[John Mikes]

Dear Hal, you indicated a post of yours by date and time - I have no
facilities to trace it. Was It the one I copied hereunder? (Topically it
may be...) -- See my remarks below. - John M
---

*Hal Ruhl:*

*"Here are some expansions on my prior post regarding the following three
topics:*

* i) Consciousness: Define it for now as the detection by a life entity of
the current system energy configuration both internal and external to the
life entity sufficient to ensure its adherence to its "Actual Purpose" [AP]
in its universe.  In our universe it appears that even single cells may
have antenna to facilitate this detection.  See "ScienceNews", 11/03/12,
page 16.  I have proposed that life's AP in this universe is the one I
derived in earlier posts.  Call this "proposed Actual Purpose 1" [pAP1].  I
see no reason how the life’s Origin that I propose and pAP1 conflict with
such antenna on individual cells. *

* ii) Freewill:  pAP1 precludes it because life must always follow its
purpose, so too for any AP that differs from pAP1. *

* iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an
extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 would
be the only priority for life.  We may not be extinguished as a species but
we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of pPA1.  There have
been a number of extinction events.  However, evolution has used some of
these to produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier
busting ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as
ourselves from the K-Pg event."*

*--*

*i) "LIFE ENTITY" *is beyond me at this time*.* I define* Ccness* as
"response to relations" - not within OUR current system energy
configuration.

"Actual Purpose" is an open question since I reject teleology. In my
imagination's worldview I presumed the history of a 'uiverse': it started
by an (inevitable) violation of the perfect symmetry in the (timeless)
Plenitude and trends to smoothing back - when the universe dissolves in it.
THAT may be a universe's AP ((Life's??)) - No mention of 'individual
cells' or other figments.

*ii) *I did not detect a 'purpose' for life (whatever we may agree in its
essence to be) and consider any 'process' (function, change, you name it)
facilitated by the 'givens' - much more assorted than we ever could follow
- but some easier, some less easily attainable (=route of the lowest
resistance). I could not find it feasible for SOME personal agency (??) to
decide on its own anything as matching the FREE WILL, in the religious
menace against sin, threatening with eternal punishment: a tool in
enslaving society. (Purpose matching, or not).

*iii) *Survival on THIS primitive, rural planet? No argument here. I don't
see it as a consequence to "fitness" under the local circumstances, since
the dinosaur was "fit" when it got extinct by a sudden change in local
circumstances.


----

I hope now I submitted my remarks - lost originally when my computer
kidnapped my halfway written post and sent it with the first part to
Stephen.

John Mikes

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: How can words be transformed into numbers ?

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
I was active onceuponatime in library work and had to apply the so called
"Librarian Decimal System" to identify contents and connotations simply by
numbers (and signs of course).
That comes up in my mind whenever I raise questions (in my mind) vs. your
"numbers explain them all".
Computer software understanding seems to me restricted to the content what
that particular computer includes (Pardon me, Universal!).

John M

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> So how would
>
> "I see a cat."
>
> be transformed into numbers ?
>
> Maybe 63  7  89 ?
>
> I could do that if I indexed all of the words in Roget's thesaurus,
> but I don't think the numbers would mean anything besides numbers.
> Because the meanings of words come from context -- not only in where
> they are placed in a text but how they arose from culture.
> Language is culture.
>
> And in mandarin, three characters placed together might not
> have anything to do with literal meaning. For example, the
> characters for
>
> I touch flowers in vase
>
> can mean
>
>
> Final touch
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 11/9/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-08, 10:36:49
> Subject: Re: Peirce's concept of logical abduction-- a possible moneymaker
>
>
> Hi Roger Clough ,
>
> On 08 Nov 2012, at 11:03, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> > Hi Bruno Marchal
> >
> > My principal interest over the years has been to
> > come up with some self-sustaining self-generating
> > method of autopoeisis. That's why I found the I Ching
> > fascinating. It contains sensible links between binary numbers and
> > metaphors.
> >
> > When I look up methods of data mining, all they give is
> > hierarchy diagrams and numbers. How do they link
> > numbers and metaphors or words in general ?
> > Perhaps there is some sort of bayesian scheme to do that.
> >
> > Roget's thesaurus might also be a starting point,
> > since they have words of similar meanings clustered,
> > but where you go from that beats me.
>
> You should perhaps study how works a computer (or a universal number).
> They transforms numbers into words and actions all the time, and this
> in a non metaphorical way. And they can do much more, like referring
> to themselves in the 3p but also in the 1p and other senses. There is
> no more magic than in computer science, imo.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> > 11/8/2012
> > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> >
> >
> > - Receiving the following content -
> > From: Bruno Marchal
> > Receiver: everything-list
> > Time: 2012-11-07, 12:57:14
> > Subject: Re: Peirce's concept of logical abduction-- a possible
> > moneymaker
> >
> >
> > On 07 Nov 2012, at 18:12, Roger Clough wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Bruno Marchal
> >>
> >> Cool. Shows you how little I know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those things are virtually unknown by most. Computer science is very
> > technical, and the number of publications is explosive, almost an
> > industry. It is also a gold mine, alas, most philosophy curriculum
> > does not have good courses in the field. We separate the human and the
> > exact sciences, which does not help.
> > In science we still kill the diplomats, and this means that science is
> > still run by unconscious (pseudo)-religion, if not simply "the boss is
> > right" theory. Of course the degree of graveness is very variable in
> > time and places.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> >> 11/7/2012
> >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> >>
> >>
> >> - Receiving the following content -
> >> From: Bruno Marchal
> >> Receiver: everything-list
> >> Time: 2012-11-07, 12:05:11
> >> Subject: Re: Peirce's concept of logical abduction-- a possible
> >> moneymaker
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Roger Clough,
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Bruno Marchal
> >>
> >> Yes, by new I mean contingent. But Kant, although his examples
> >> are debatable, at least sought a synthetic a priori,
> >> which of course would be a gold mine, or perhaps a stairway
> >> to the divine.
> >>
> >> Pragmatism rejects the idea of there being any
> >> such universals, but I think by abduction strives
> >> to obtain completly new results (if actually new I can't say).
> >> I think that's why Peirce came up with the concept of abduction.
> >> The concept is very seductive to me for its possible
> >> power of discovery of something unknown or new.
> >> If comp could do this, I'd not spend a moment more on
> >> simulating the brain. Such a program might be worth a lot of
> >> money in venues such as AI, the defense industry, medicine
> >> and criminal investigation a la Sherlocki Holmes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Abduction is just one technic among many to do inductive inference
> >> (predicting theories from fact, synt

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

[John Mikes]

Dear Dan,
you make a lot of sense. Not so surprizing, though: "thought experiments"
are created for handling impossible (and NOT knowable) circumstances in the
tenets of (possible? believed?) scientific figments. Like e.g. the EPR.
Or: teleportation (a decade-long bore for me - sorry, Fellows).
My argument is mainly time-less: you can 'teleportate' (funny word) any
PAST event, not the FUTURE so the Teleport (noun for the teleportated?)
 will experience a DIFFERENT lifeline from the continuation of the
Original.
Your reference to time-travel is appreciable (can I kill my grandmother
before she gave birth to my mother?).
This seems to be a good pastime-game for people who could do smarter.
Regards
John Mikes



On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 4:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 <
thismindisbud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all on the list,
>
> Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this
> teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish
> to simply conclude from the entire argument that the correct substitution
> level is, in principle, not only not knowable, but not achievable, which
> means:
>
> congratulations, you have found a convincing thought experiment proof that
> teleportation is impossible in any cases greater than, say, 12 atoms or so
> (give me a margin of error of about plus/minus 100) ... this is very
> reminiscent of the way that time travel theorists use some of godel's
> closed timelike curve (CTC) solutions to einstein's relativity to argue
> that time travel to the past is possible. The problem is, the furthest back
> you can go is when you made the CTC, and yet in order to make the CTC, the
> formal and physical conditions require that you already have to have a time
> machine. This, of course, leads to paradox, because in order to travel in
> the time machine in the first place, you have to have had a time machine to
> use as a kind of mechanism for the whole project.
>
> In the same way, I think, does your ingenious UDA lead not to the
> conclusion you want it to, (i.e. we are eternal numbers contained in the
> computation of some infinite computer) but rather the less appealing
> conclusion that, perhaps, the teleportation required in your entire thought
> experiment is simply impossible, for much of the same reasons as time
> travel is impossible.
>
> It's still an important result, but perhaps not as profound as you think
> if we admit that the teleportation required in your thought experiment is
> simply not possibly for purely naturalistic (and therefore not
> computational, or mechanistic) reasons.
>
> Looking forward to your response,
>
> Dan
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CJQdSUzCiTMJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[John Mikes]

The Bartender speaketh:

Russell and Bruno, IMO all (cosmological?) start-up theories (incl. the
Friedmann one, my contemporaneous one) include a vision of TODAY's
universe- physics, gravity, sizes, math etc. - absolutely rubbish down from
the zillion-times values that could have been in the 'pre-explosion'(?)
 morsel we think it had to start from.
Furthermore the theories are mostly based on linear processing - no
justification for such.
(R: the Hubble constant is one of the actual deductions of OUR present
universe-view)
(B: I heard about a 'religious dogmatic' opinion about a ~6000 y.o. world.
What religion dogmates (!) 14 b years? not even my 'un-religion'.)

I just love the inflation-theory aiming to seting the math-mistakes
straight.
*
My 'narrative' (I don't call it a theory) ends the universes (all of
them?!) when the complexities (= violations in the totally-symmetrical
Plenitude) re-distribute into said totl symmetry (heat death) and smoothen
BACK into the Plenitude they popped out from inevitably.
I do not speculate about that darn Plenitude - so far beyond our
capabilities and resources to learn anything about it. It is (supposed to
be) sort of an Everything in infinite equilibrium/symmetry in our human
logic.

The rest is our partial knowledge we applied to 'explain' (mostly math.ly)
our poorly understood observational fragments we gathered over the
millennia of enlightenment, - always at the actual level of understanding.

John M


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 11 Nov 2012, at 23:35, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>  Rubbish, it not a measurement of the age of the universe, but rather
>> of the Hubble constant. It only corresponds to the age of the universe
>> in the context of a specific theory, usually the Friedmann universe,
>> which is one of the simplests solutions to Einstein's theory of
>> general relativity.
>>
>> Journalists tend to oversimplify things, and get it so wrong.
>>
>
> You are quite right. Note that some physicists do seem to believe, in the
> religious dogmatic way, that the Big Bang is the ultimate start. Others
> believe that it might just be a local big explosion, or that the big bang
> result from the collision of branes (in string theory or M theory), and
> that it is not the beginning of the story. With comp we "know" such thing
> at the start. The ultimate story is not even physical at all.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 08:01:46AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Russell Standish
>>>
>>> It's not theory, it's measurement to 4 figures, with an error of plus or
>>> minus 0.87 %:
>>>
>>> http://www.universetoday.com/**13371/1373-billion-years-the-**
>>> most-accurate-measurement-of-**the-age-of-the-universe-yet/
>>>
>>> "13.73 Billion Years -- The Most Precise Measurement of the Age of the
>>> Universe Yet
>>> by Ian O'Neill on March 28, 2008
>>> Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on
>>> Twitter
>>>
>>> NASA? Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has taken the best
>>> measurement of the age of the Universe to date.
>>> According to highlyprecise observations of microwave radiation observed
>>> all over the cosmos, WMAP scientists now have the
>>> best estimate yet on the age of the Universe:
>>> 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 120 million years (that's an error
>>> margin of only 0.87% ! not bad really).
>>>
>>> The WMAP mission was sent to the Sun-Earth second Lagrangian point (L2),
>>> located approximately 1.5 million km
>>> from the surface of the Earth on the night-side (i.e. WMAP is constantly
>>> in the shadow of the Earth) in 2001.
>>>
>>> The reason for this location is the nature of the gravitational
>>> stability in the region and the lack of
>>> electromagnetic interference from the Sun. Constantly looking out into
>>> space, WMAP scans the
>>> cosmos with its ultra sensitive microwave receiver, mapping any small
>>> variations in the background temperature (anisotropy) of the universe. It
>>> can detect microwave radiation in the wavelength range of 3.3-13.6 mm
>>> (with a corresponding frequency of 90-22 GHz). Warm and cool regions of
>>> space are therefore mapped, including the radiation polarity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/11/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Russell Standish
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 17:39:09
>>> Subject: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite. It has measured that the universe 14 billion year ago was
>>> very different from now, ie very hot and dense. All else is theory -
>>> some theories have a beginning, others don't.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:50:38AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
 Hi Stephen,

Re: [evol-psych] The problem of what exists*

[John Mikes]

Dear Richard and Anna:
I have an easier stance on the subject: whatever 'comes up' in 'a' mind -
exists. If not otherwise: in thought (idea?). Once 'thought' about it, it
does
become part of the world.
Physical attributes may be considered by people who accept those figments
but even for those it should not be restrictive.
As our inventory of knowables grows steadily we have no restrictions to put
in the way of possible(?) existence. We cannot prove impossibility.

I do not go for old theories, many of them were rescinded over time when
newer items entered the said inventory. My(!) Multiverse consists of quite
unequal universes (according to my narrative) - no TWO may be identical
because of different circumstances of how they proceed to change.

I accept the 'physical world' figment as a workable explanation to things
still unknowable, it gave rise to a (conventional) science and a technology
which is (almost) good - always brilliant. Yet I also accept (in
agnosticism) an unlimited complexity of everything - still unknown to us,
yet influencing the happenings we observe (=our actual model of the
'knowable' world -  what Richard represents so eloqiently.)

I also appreciate every step forward in expanding our knowledge.

John Mikes
Ph.D., D.Sc. ret. scientist
--

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> Anna,
>
> I strongly suggest that any interested party read the paper
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0602/0602420.pdf as the copy below
> leaves out a most interesting discussion of emergence and entanglement. And
> besides the string landscape is not 10500 but rather the vastly larger
> number 10^500. To wet your appetite here is a key paragraph:
>
> "It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to
> be to encounter
> the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the limit is too
> weak to make a jot
> of difference. But in cases where the parameters of the system are
> combinatorically
> explosive, the limit can be significant. For example, proteins are made of
> strings of 20
> different sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has
> more
> dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120  when the number of amino acids
> is greater than
> about 60 (Davies, 2004). Curiously, 60 amino acids is about the size of
> the smallest
> functional protein, suggesting that the threshold for life might
> correspond to the threshold
> for strong emergence, supporting the contention that life is an emergent
> phenomenon (in
> the strong sense of emergence). Another example concerns quantum
> entanglement. An
> entangled state of about 400  particles also approaches  the
> Landauer-Lloyd complexity
> limit (Davies, 2005a). That means the Hilbert space of such a state has
> more dimensions
> than the informational capacity of the universe; the state simply cannot
> be specified
> within the real universe. (There are not enough degrees of freedom in the
> entire cosmos
> to accommodate all the coefficients!) A direct implication of this result
> is the prediction
> that a quantum computer with more than about 400 entangled components will
> not
> function as advertised (and 400 is well within the target design
> specifications of the
> quantum computer industry).  "
>
> Richard
>
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Anna  wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>   **
>> *The problem of what exists**
>> **
>> *P.C.W. Davies*
>> *Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University, New South
>> Wales, Australia 2109*
>> *Abstract*
>> **
>> **
>> *Popular multiverse models such as the one based on the string theory
>> landscape require an underlying set of unexplained laws containing many
>> specific features and highly restrictive prerequisites. I explore the
>> consequences of relaxing some of these prerequisites with a view to
>> discovering whether any of them might be justified anthropically. Examples
>> considered include integer space dimensionality, the immutable, Platonic
>> nature of the laws of physics and the no-go theorem for strong emergence.
>> The problem of why some physical laws exist, but others which are seemingly
>> possible do not, takes on a new complexion following this analysis,
>> although it remains an unsolved problem in the absence of an additional
>> criterion.*
>>
>> 1. Background
>> The puzzle of why the universe consists of the things it does is one of
>> the oldest problems of philosophy. Given the seemingly limitless
>> possibilities available, why is it the case that atoms, stars, clouds,
>>

Re: Biography, roger clough, Soles, 1963

[John Mikes]

Dear Roger, several things...
1. Congrats to your bio, I could've detected that 'too much' engineering in
your background. I give you (free!) a ZERO (add it to your retirement year:
it should be 200+0).
2. You seem to be efficient in your (lately) studies of the advanced
(onto-) ideas of 300 years ago (Leibnitz). You have pretty interesting
ideas.
3. And please: give back our list to us who have participated in different
aspects for the past 15 years on it. As I said you have interesting ideas
and the deluge of posts you submit attract too many responses from the
established (and very smart) Stammgasts.
4. I think whatever I call 'Infinite Complexity' - you call 'God'. Easier,
because th4r43 is ample lit to extract fir answers from to questions in
doubt. I chose agnosticism in (my) science. Not in religion and not as an
atheism (requiring a God to deny).
5. I wish I had SOME of your rich reading memories in theoretical topics.

I graduated in 1944 (Ph.D.:1948-chemistry, D.Sc. 1967 - mostly colloidal
sci. FOR polymers, ion exchangers and environmental engineering). Ret:
Ciba Geigy 1987 - Sen. Res. Fllw.) - 38 patents, ~100 sci. papers, books

John Mikes

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>
>
>
>  Hi guys,
>
> Attached is my just-written biography for
> an upcoming 50th year reunion book.
> I thougbht I'd pass it on.
>
> Layette Collage is in Easton, PA
>
>
>
>   [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 11/28/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe

[John Mikes]

Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for
yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic "explanation" (=a joke).
I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not
detect the concept for such. Also: when you wrote

*" I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or
total cause or 'orchestration'."*
*
*
it resonates with my "denial" of classic causation in which it is presumed
to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism denies from
our present knowable.
I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of is
the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for, considering more
than we may know within our presently knowable model of the world. I am
also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning the
infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no
identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' - a
possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the (presumed?)
infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) -  generating undefinable
"universes" (in my narrative).

*Orchestration *is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the 'least
obstructed way' of *change* substituting even for 'evolution'-like
processes.
The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking within
those limitations we observed over the past millennia.
The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By no
means an 'absolute' denomination (not a *'real entity'*).
I want to press that I do not feel "above" such limitations myself, but at
least I try to find wider boundaries.

I would not say:

*"...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source."*
*
*
rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ignorance,
Bundle it up with 'energy', 'electricity' and the other zillion marvels our
conventional sciences USE, CALCULATE, DIFFERENTIATE, without the foggiest
idea WHAT they are and HOW they work. I accept our overall ignorance.

Best regards
John Mikes



On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
> an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
> an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.
>
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-)
>
>
> You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
> in that you believe in local dermination/causation while
> I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas
> aren't causal) only apparent.
>
>
> I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent
> causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or
> total cause or 'orchestration'.
>
>
>  To go back to my orchestra analogy,
> you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays
> his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme
> monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for
> composing the score in the first place.
>
>
> Could you consider that this "overall conductor' is an imaginary
> entity and not a real entity?
>
>
>
> Your local governor appears to be "a set of relations".
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>  L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor
> (the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony
> exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd
> its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized.
>
>
> Yes, but I am pointing out that this assumption that "a
> pre-established harmony exists between sets" is an a priori global
> partitioning on the percepts and this is explicitly disallowed for
> mathematical reasons. Do you understand the discussion about NP-Hard
> problems that I have previously mentioned?
>
>
>
> In short, you seem to have no  means of overall synchronizing
> the actions of sets.
>
>
> Exactly. In order to have an overall synchronization of the actions
> there must be a computation of such and this is an infinite NP-hard problem
> that simply cannot occur prior to the availability of the resources for the
> computation. To think otherwise is equivalent to imagining that a physical
> computer can run without a power source.
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough],

Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads

[John Mikes]

Bruno:

how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal,
binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems?
in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1.
Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind). Also zero
can be "thought of" in non-human logic as participant in calculations.

John M
PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work.

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>
>> Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers,
>> whatever they be.
>>
>
> Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 
> or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> - Have received the following content -
>> Sender: Roger Clough
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:36
>> Subject: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads
>>
>>
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>>
>> 1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the
>> Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's
>> 1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God.
>>
>> 2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I
>> thought that all monads had to refer to physical substances.
>>
>> But natural numbers are different because
>> even though they are only mental substances, they're still
>> substances, by virtue of the fact that they can't be subdivided.
>> So they are of one part each.
>>
>> Thus the natural numbers are monads, even though they have no
>> physical correlates. Sorry I've be so slow to see that.
>>
>> That reallyiopens doors Then numbers can see each other with 1p.
>>
>> WHOOPEE !
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 12/7/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Bruno Marchal
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-12-06, 12:44:46
>> Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the
>> mind
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05 Dec 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>> Indeed, we can not code for [1p].  But we need not abandon
>> itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive
>> theory has done.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, I define it is a simple way (the owner of the diary) the
>> the self-multiplication thought experiment (UDA). It is enough to
>> understand that physics emerge from the way the "numbers see themselves".
>>
>>
>> But in the math part, I define it by using the fact that the
>> incompleteness phenomenon redeemed the Theatetus definition. The Bp & p
>> definition. It is a bit technical.
>>
>>
>> Don't worry. The 1p is the inner god, the first person, the knower, and
>> it plays the key role for consciousness and matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  We can replace [1p] by its actions -
>> those of perception,  in which terms are relational (subject: object).
>> You seem to deal with everything from the 3p perspective.
>>
>>
>> That's science. But don't confuse the level. My object of study is the
>> 1p, that we can attribute to machine, or person emulated by machines. I
>> describe the 3p and the 1ps (singular and plural), and indeed their
>> necessary statistical relation at some level.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That is my argument for using semiotics, which includes 1p (or
>> interprant) as a necessary and natural part of its triad of relations.
>> Your responses seem to leave out such relations.  I cannot find
>> again the quote I should have bookmarked, but in an argument
>> for using semiotics on the web, it was said that modern cognitive
>> theory has abandoned the self in an effort to depersonalize
>> cognition.  While this is a valid scientific reason, it doesn't work
>> when living breathing humans are concerned.
>>
>>
>> I use computer and mathematical logic semantic. That's the advantage of
>> comp. You have computer science.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO leaving out [1p ] in such a way will forever prevent
>> computer calculations from emulating the mind.
>>
>>
>> The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points
>> of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the
>> comp hope, or the comp fear.
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 12/5/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Bruno Marchal
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-12-03, 13:03:12
>> Subject: Re: Semantic vs logical truth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual
>> machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine
>> (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not
>> codable.  The 1p truth are more related to the relat

Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads

[John Mikes]

OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system.
The last time I really *studied* math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my
Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget.

12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a math-system,
like with "2" the binary, or with "10" the decimal. The rest is application
(ha ha). Ask the super-duper universal computer of yours.

Sorry for erring into such un-serious and un-scientific corners.

Have a good Christmas time

John
--

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
> On 08 Dec 2012, at 21:32, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>
> how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal,
> binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems?
> in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1.
>
>
> I am not sure I understand what a 12/17 ary system. Thanks for using the
> base 10 for 12 and 17, at least.
>
> Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind).
>
>
> Not sure.
>
>
> Also zero can be "thought of" in non-human logic as participant in
> calculations.
>
>
> The chinese makes them so, and basically all numbers, except 3, 4, 5, 6,
>  were first seen as useful participants until we develop the axiomatic
> method where we can work on any system on numbers as long as we find some
> axioms making it possible to share the discoveries with others.
>
>
>
> John M
> PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work.
>
>
> Oops! Too late :)
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers,
>>> whatever they be.
>>>
>>
>> Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 
>> or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Have received the following content -
>>> Sender: Roger Clough
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:36
>>> Subject: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the
>>> Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's
>>> 1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God.
>>>
>>> 2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I
>>> thought that all monads had to refer to physical substances.
>>>
>>> But natural numbers are different because
>>> even though they are only mental substances, they're still
>>> substances, by virtue of the fact that they can't be subdivided.
>>> So they are of one part each.
>>>
>>> Thus the natural numbers are monads, even though they have no
>>> physical correlates. Sorry I've be so slow to see that.
>>>
>>> That reallyiopens doors Then numbers can see each other with 1p.
>>>
>>> WHOOPEE !
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 12/7/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Bruno Marchal
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-12-06, 12:44:46
>>> Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the
>>> mind
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05 Dec 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>> Indeed, we can not code for [1p].  But we need not abandon
>>> itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive
>>> theory has done.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary, I define it is a simple way (the owner of the diary)
>>> the the self-multiplication thought experiment (UDA). It is enough to
>>> understand that physics emerge from the way the "numbers see themselves".
>>>
>>>
>>> But in the math part, I define it by using the fact that the
>>> incompleteness phenomenon redeemed the Theatetus definition. The Bp & p
>>> definition. It is a bit technical.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't worry. The 1p is the inner god, the first person, the knower, and
>>> it plays the key role for consciousness and matter.
>>&

Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p.

[John Mikes]

Stathis:
do you mean to recover Alzheimer-destroyed memories as well?
JM

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>> My personal introspection will always have my personal
>> memory as context, which a computer will not have.
>> One can in fact say that I am my memory. My
>> memory is the identity of my 1p and is what my 1p sees.
>>
>> This is perhaps the most serioous problem of comp.
>>
>
> Your memory survives destruction of your brain. A new brain is constructed
> over time such that after months almost none of the matter in the original
> brain remains in your body. The old brain is used as a template, and only a
> rough template at that. So there is no theoretical obstacle to transferring
> your mind from one collection of matter to another. The question is whether
> the mind can be replicated in a different substrate. This has been
> discussed here before and I think the answer is clearly (though not
> intuitively) yes, provided that the new substrate is able to replicate the
> 3p observable behaviour of the brain.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Against Mechanism

[John Mikes]

Brent,
I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one
reason:
if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether
"you" will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self.
However, if it goes into a multiple existence then - my problem is - what
happens to the 'experience' of self1 while you consider yourself at self2
location? the self-s inadvertently diverge so you cannot be both (or more).
In such case the 'pronoun' sindrom is valid. "YOU" are the "ONE" passing
several locations - accumulating continual experience upon yourself (the 1)
and if you happen to return to a former one, it will not be "YOU".

You can dismiss my problem by "you did not follow the suvject".
John M

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/14/2012 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
>  > In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM,
>> alias comp), there are two first person points of view
>>
>
> Yes, Bruno Marchal has said that many times and it's true that after the
> duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but
> the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first person
> point of view at it is here the question is asked about the future state of
> "you" and demands are made for one and only one answer.
>
> John Clark has been complaining about the unfettered use of personal
> pronouns in a world with duplicating chambers for a long time now, and yet
> those who disagree with John Clark continue to use those pronouns as
> frequently as ever, it seems that those people just cannot help themselves.
> The very fact that opponents are simply unable to express ideas without
> using those cancerous pronouns should give those people some insight into
> the nature of those aforesaid ideas.
>
>   > you just limit yourself to the 3p view, and never put you feet in the
>> shoes of the reconstituted person,
>>
>
> And Bruno Marchal never explains which of those two first person points of
> view "you" should put feet into and which first person viewpoint "you"
> should not. Bruno Marchal simply cannot converse on this subject unless 5
> to 10% of the words are personal pronouns, in spite of the fact that if it
> was always clear what those pronouns referred to this entire debate would
> be unnecessary.
>
>
> Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns.  I think it
> needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to
> explain.  Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter and it
> sends him to Washington. That Bruno, Bruno_w goes back to Helsinki, gets in
> the transporter again and it sends him to Moscow. That Bruno_wm goes back
> to Helsinki and repeats this process many times.  Eventually
> Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm concludes that the transporter seems to be random
> and just sends him to Washington or Moscow at random with probability 1/2.
> This is hailed as a great discovery...in Copenhagen.  But in Washington
> (state) near the upper reached of Puget Sound there is a dislike of random
> things and a general feeling that randomness can never be a property of the
> world, but only a quantification of ignorance.  So there a different view
> of Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm's experiment is that every time he pushed the
> button two whole universes were created, separated by more than the Hubble
> radius, and in one Bruno went to Bruno_w and in the other he went to
> Bruno_m.  And so there was no probability involved, exactly the same thing
> happened every time.  It only seemed like probability and randomness.  Some
> people thought this was a little extravagant and asked how was energy
> conserved and how could this theory be tested.  But they were silenced by
> being told the theory predicted exactly the same things as the probability
> theory without probabilities, so it must be right.
>
> Brent
> Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them
> where they cannot be seen.
> --- Stephen W. Hawking
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Men don't get no respect these days

[John Mikes]

Do not fall for the US mistake to call the prez's administration a
"government". In this country
GOVERNMENT  =  CONGRESS, they spend, or save.
Boehner's majority deal: do it MY WAY and I agree.
Obama is not republican: he is weak.
JM

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Stephen P. King 
> wrote:
> > On 12/17/2012 12:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>
> >> You know that the Republican administrations have been the worst deficit
> >> spenders though.
> >
> >
> > Obama must be a Republican!
>
> Same goes for FDR. The circumstances are extenuating.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Onward!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> >
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

[John Mikes]

Congrats to the perfect definition.
Add to it (my) agnostic position that we know only part of everything and
nobody will talk "truth".
To Brent: about "FACTS"? the facts we see(?) are similarly only model
related (partially understood).
JM

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot
> really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious
> ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this
> does not really define it.
> Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond
> words, even the ultimate 3p truth.
>
>
> What would it mean to 'define truth'?  We can define 'true' as a property
> of sentence that indicates a fact.
>
>
> That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing
> metaphysics, you have to replace facts by "facts in some model/reality".
>
>
> OK. But then it's "True relative to the model." and it's not necessarily
> The Truth.
>
>
>
>
>  But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'.
>
>
> It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a
> theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set
> in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa
> (existence of inaccessible cardinals).
>
> PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded
> restriction of the quantification.
>
>
>
> So what is that definition?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms,
>
>
> No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for
> arithmetic "true" means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *).
>
>
>
>  i.e. not provably false?
>
>
> How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual
> structure'? Can you give an example?
>
>
> That just consistent.
>
>
> I would think it was incompleteness.  Consistency means not being able to
> prove every proposition.  But in a consistent system there can be
> propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable.  Are those true?
>
> Brent
>
>
>  True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

[John Mikes]

I tried to identify the meaning of "axiom" and found a funny solution:
as it looks, "AXIOM" is an unprovable idea underlining a theory otherwise
non-provable.
In most cases: an unjustified statement, that, however, DOES work in the
contest of the particular theory it is serving.

Better definitions??

John M

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or
>> false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me
>> to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a
>> model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with
>> a theory  (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition.
>>
>
> If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but
> you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that
> proposition as axiom.
>
> Quentin
>
>
> It seems like just defining a new predicate "accessible" which means
> "provable or disprovable" which you attach to propositions.  Then it
> doesn't need be an axiom and it still allows an excluded middle.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index

[John Mikes]

I do not intend to 'clear up' on a nonexisting "fairness Index".
Democracy is an oxymoron: NO CHANCE the  entire populace (demos) could
exercise governance-power (cratos). There is a COMPROMISE in voting: what
do I prefer to vote for from other goals I put temporarily to sleep - and
who is the 'candidate' lying (=campaigning?) exactly towards THOSE chosen
goals?
What makes a REPRESENTATIONAL RESPUBLIC in which the representants keep
their promises as it seems fit. To recall them? very rare.
It is still better than an autocratic dictature, religious, financial, or
political.

Now what is fair? an existing system produces values in different
proportions to different role-players. It is definitely NOT FAIR what the
ultra-wealthy pocket (- a question drawn here in a discussion group: who
are the ultra-wealthy? with an instant reply: whoever has more them
himself). Approaching fairness:
the values are used differently by diffeent segments of society, so should
be the burden of contribution (tax etc.) factored upon the 'pocketed'
(earned???) values to SUPPORT said beneficial values.
Low income local workers draw less from foreign
relations,transportation,finance,  banking, intricate law (legislation -
enforcement) perspective research projects, and a host of other topics
"rich segments" live on. So the latter should pick up a larger burden of
the expenses than the former, in all fairness.

I don't even 'touch' the (moral) aspect of social conscientiousness.

John M



On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> More liberal misrepresentation of the truth.  The
> gini for the USA is about average for the world.
>
>
> But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND
> it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Dennett and others on qualia

[John Mikes]

Bruno and Brent:

we  T H I N K  we have an idea what 'qualia' may be and ACCEPT our figment
on 'quanta' (i.e numbered 'objects'  - figments as well).
None of the two(?) are closer to the essence (read: 'truth') we just got
better used (evolved?) to quantitative thinking and language concerning
such because it seemed simpler to follow in primitive life. Now, with
Bruno's highly developed apparatus in arithmetics, quanta (numbers!) look
like a 'reality' as compared to our still flimsy ideas about *other *qualia.
Yet *qualia* they are (in a quantizing sense)
Language development went in parallel with a mental development.
This asymmetry may be the base for Bruno's:
 *"No qualia are communicable in the sense that quanta, or numbers, are
communicable."*
No OTHER qualia, that is - as Brent remarked.

Turing (universal) and Church (thesis) are compatible products of the
presently developed state of the human mind, evolved as some justification
(base?) for the workings of the latest and still holding) version.
They comfort the finite thinking (even in the infinite inclusions) which is
our restricted way to apply human logic and 'ascertainable' reality. \

John M



On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 24 Dec 2012, at 00:31, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/23/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:22, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 10/26/2012 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> On 25 Oct 2012, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  Good points.  The contrast is usually qualia-v-quanta. I think color
>> can be communicated and we have an "RGB" language for doing so that makes
>> it more quanta than qualia.  So extending your point to Schrodinger, if
>> you're a wine connoisseur you have a language for communicating the taste
>> of wine.  Most of us don't speak it, but most people don't speak
>> differential equations either.  But those are all things that can be
>> shared.  The pain of a headache generally can't be perceived by two
>> different people.  But there are experiments that use small electric 
>> shocks
>> to try to produce objective scales of pain.  So I think you are right 
>> that
>> it is a matter of having developed the language; I just don't think color
>> is the best example.
>>
>
> I disagree here. No qualia are communciable in the sense that quanta,
> or numbers, are communicable. We can talk and understand talk on color 
> only
> because we bet that we share similar experience in front of 
> electromagnetic
> wave with certain wave-length.
>

 We only agree on numbers and counting because we distinguish objects in
 the same way.

>>>
>>> We only can distinguish objects in the same way because we have brain
>>> which can use numbers and count, in the universal way.
>>>
>>
>> We bet it is universal and that seems to work (most of the time) - but
>> the same is true of representing colors by numbers.  We do it that way,
>> instead of representing numbers by colors, because our discrimination of
>> colors is not quite as good as our discrimination of objects (e.g. some
>> people are color blind).
>>
>
> We don't have to bet the brain is (Turing universal), we can prove it. We
> bet on Church thesis, simply.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Otherwise your mother could not have taught you to count.

>>>
>>> I still feel guilty how much I made my mom suffering on this.
>>>
>>> 1, 2,  What!?!, I stopped already at 2. What is that? Why?
>>>
>>> With the amoeba I got acquainted with the 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... idea.
>>>
>>> But it will take me the reading of Nagel & Newman "Gödel's proof" to get
>>> the 0, 1, 2, 3, ... profoundness, and to decide to study mathematics
>>> instead of biology.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Brent

 --
 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
 .
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=en
 .


>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 

Re: truth

[John Mikes]

Bruno:

Doesn't it emerge in this respect "WHAT truth?" or rather
"WHOSE truth?" is there an accepted authority to verify an "absolute" truth
judgeable from a different belief system?

JohnM




On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Jun 2012, at 09:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following:
>>
>>> On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>>>
 I have many questions.

 One is "what if truth were malleable?" --

>>> HI Brian,
>>>
>>> If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
>>> "standards" of truth varied, how could we tell? This reminds me of
>>> the debate between Leibniz and Newton regarding the notion of
>>> absolute space.
>>>
>>>
>> If one assumes the correspondence theory of truth, then the question
>> would be if a reality were malleable.
>>
>
>
>
> Right. Which leads to the question; what does Brian mean by "truth is
> malleable"?
>
> Would this entail that arithmetical truth is malleable? What would it mean
> that the truth of "17 is prime" is malleable. It looks like we need a more
> solid truth than arithmetic in which we can make sense of the malleability
> of the truth in arithmetic, but I cannot see anything more solid than
> elementary arithmetic.
>
> Some truth can be malleable in some operational sense, but this will be
> only metaphorical. For example the "truth" that cannabis is far more safe
> than alcohol, appears to be quite malleable, but this is just because
> special interest exploits the lack of education in logic. People driven by
> power are used to mistreat truth, but it is just errors or lies. I guess
> Brian's question is more metaphysical, but then in which non malleable
> context can we make sense of metaphysically malleable truth? Perhaps Brian
> should elaborate on what he means by "truth is malleable"? It seems to me
> that such an idea is similar to complete relativism, which defeats itself
> by not allowing that very idea to be relativized.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: I am the de-phlogistonator!

[John Mikes]

Dear Colin,

I just LOVE your crystal ball. Call it "phlogiston" or whatever.
Your article
http://www.theconversation.edu.au/the-modern-phlogiston-why-thinking-machines-dont-need-computers-7881

is a beauty and I enjoyed your exchange with Ben Goertzel. My questions,
however, remained untouched from my earlier *agnostic* remarks:

"Who told you that whatever *"brain"* does is *physically * (and I mean the
quantitative figment-science we learn at school)  described as of
yesterday? That it is * A L L*  that
counts?
Your choice of name sounds a bit correct: Becher in 1667 thought everything
is known to deduce his phlogiston and the AI thinks everything is known to
'model' thinking. Not too much of an advancement in "leading" sciences.
It is more than likely that "WE" (whoever that may be) use something we
identify with our "brain" as a practical tool for thinking, but we have no
justification how much more is to it to make it work than what we already
know (in our so far achieved mini-solipsism).

I do not argue against using computers to mimic thinking I just question if
the process is sufficiently *known* to make a workable computer-model
(especially using up the ZERO $ funds available and using our present
embryonic- binary - digital computer models).

If all fits, it still may be an anthropocentric/morphic logic to imitate,
while nature is not restricted to such. But this point goes too far maybe.

Agnostically yours

John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc. ret. polymer scientist





On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales <
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> ** **
>
> Hales, C. G. 2012 The modern phlogiston: why ‘thinking machines’ don’t
> need computers TheConversation. The Conversation media Group.
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.theconversation.edu.au/the-modern-phlogiston-why-thinking-machines-dont-need-computers-7881
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers
>
> Colin
>
> P.S. I am done with this issue. I'll just 'Lavoisier' my way through the
> phlogiston.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: truth

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno, think about it as "absolute truth:
Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?
Respectfully John

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hello John,
>
>   On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:43, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Bruno:
>
> Doesn't it emerge in this respect "WHAT truth?" or rather
> "WHOSE truth?" is there an accepted authority to verify an "absolute"
> truth judgeable from a different belief system?
>
>
> I don't think such authority exists. We can only agree on hypotheses,
> about such truth, concerning some domain of investigation.
>
> We can also agree on the existence or non existence of facts confirming
> some truth concerning some reality.
>
> But we can bet such truth exists, even if we cannot believe it or know it
> "for sure".
>
> Examples:
>
> - Few people doubt that "1+1=2" is an "absolute truth", when 1 and 2 are
> used as the usual name for the standard natural numbers, and "+" represents
> the standard addition operation. Likewise for the whole elementary (first
> order) arithmetic.
>
> - We usually don't doubt the mundane informations. So, 'Obama is the
> actual president of the US' can reasonably be assumed as absolute. I mean,
> with "actual", that "Obama is the actual president of the US in our
> reality" is the absolute truth. Not the proposition "Obama is the actual
> president of the US" which might be false in the universe next door.
>
> Most theoretical truth are absolute, thanks to their conditional shapes.
> For example the existence of parallel universes in the theoretical
> framework of QM-without-collapse is absolute, accepting some reasonable
> definition of what is a universe (a set of events closed for interaction,
> for example). This is absolute as it is a theorem in QM-without-collapse
> (or of comp). Of course the proposition "parallel universes exist" is not
> absolute at all.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Jun 2012, at 09:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>> On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following:
>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have many questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> One is "what if truth were malleable?" --
>>>>>
>>>> HI Brian,
>>>>
>>>> If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
>>>> "standards" of truth varied, how could we tell? This reminds me of
>>>> the debate between Leibniz and Newton regarding the notion of
>>>> absolute space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If one assumes the correspondence theory of truth, then the question
>>> would be if a reality were malleable.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Right. Which leads to the question; what does Brian mean by "truth is
>> malleable"?
>>
>> Would this entail that arithmetical truth is malleable? What would it
>> mean that the truth of "17 is prime" is malleable. It looks like we need a
>> more solid truth than arithmetic in which we can make sense of the
>> malleability of the truth in arithmetic, but I cannot see anything more
>> solid than elementary arithmetic.
>>
>> Some truth can be malleable in some operational sense, but this will be
>> only metaphorical. For example the "truth" that cannabis is far more safe
>> than alcohol, appears to be quite malleable, but this is just because
>> special interest exploits the lack of education in logic. People driven by
>> power are used to mistreat truth, but it is just errors or lies. I guess
>> Brian's question is more metaphysical, but then in which non malleable
>> context can we make sense of metaphysically malleable truth? Perhaps Brian
>> should elaborate on what he means by "truth is malleable"? It seems to me
>> that such an idea is similar to complete relativism, which defeats itself
>> by not allowing that very idea to be relativized.
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
&g

Re: truth

[John Mikes]

Brent:
I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant
logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more relatives.
John

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 6/27/2012 2:26 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno, think about it as "absolute truth:
> Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?
> Respectfully John
>
>
> Naah!  It's 10.
>
> Brent
> There are 10 kinds of people; those who think in binary and those who
> don't.
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: truth

[John Mikes]

Brent, thanks for the appreciation!

My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever "WE"
accept is "human".
What is Mother Nature accepting?

John M

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Brent:
>> I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant
>> logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
>> So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more relatives.
>> John
>>
>
> Or less facetiously,  (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of
> Gennifer)=(One, me)  and  (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop).  So
> whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of arithmetic to
> your model.
>
> Brent
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: truth

[John Mikes]

Bruno asked:
  . Is that an absolute truth?

By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY
agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept better
expressions.
(Except for "absolute truth" - ha ha).
And Teilhard was a great master of words.
John M

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
>
> My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
> We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever "WE"
> accept is "human".
>
>
>
> Is that an absolute truth?
>
> In my humble opinion, "WE = human" seems to me quite relative. When I
> listen to the jumping spiders or the Löbian machines, most seems to
> disagree.
>
> Bruno
>
> *We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual
> beings having a human experience.*
> (de Chardin).
>
>
>  What is Mother Nature accepting?
>
> John M
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>> Brent:
>>> I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant
>>> logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
>>> So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more relatives.
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> Or less facetiously,  (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of
>> Gennifer)=(One, me)  and  (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop).  So
>> whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of arithmetic to
>> your model.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>> .
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: truth

[John Mikes]

Bruno:
*"Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2 are
just imagining something else."*  -
 do you mean: "imagining something else
THAN WHAT YOU WERE *IMAGINING*?" sounds like a claim to some priviledge to
imagining - only YOUR WAY?
(I know you will vehemently deny that - ha ha).

To Guitarist:
*"It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do stuff
like: 1 + 1 = 11"*
You made my point - which was to (agnostically) expose that we have no
approved authority to a ONE AND ONLY opinion.
Not even within what we may call 'possible'.

John M
*


*
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi Guitar boy,
>
>  On 04 Jul 2012, at 16:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
> Hello Everythinglisters,
>
> First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions from
> time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more musical tendency.
>
> It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do stuff
> like: 1 + 1 = 11
>
> If people are sincere about pulling whatever sums they feel like with
> personal justification, then we might as well say 1 + 1 = 0, with a kind of
> zen logic, where everything = nothing as a fancy justification.
>
>
> Well in Z_2 = {0, 1}, we do have a law with 1+1 = 0. (modular arithmetic).
> But 1 is still different from 0. But I get your point.
>
>
> And anybody still willing to assert this could post their bank account
> details and pin numbers and be freed from arithmetic dictatorship by having
> their account cleaned out by other everything listers that DO believe in
> sums, successors etc. as 0 = whatever they want, and the sum of their
> balance doesn't really matter, as it's only some personal belief shared by
> a few control freaks.
>
>
> Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2 are
> just imagining something else. It is not an arguent that a truth is not
> absolute, but that the notation used to described it can have other
> interpreations. In the Z_2 structure, which plays a key role in many
> places: 2 = 0. But 2 does not represent the successor of of the successor
> of zero, it represents the rest when we divide by the usual number 2. It
> really means:
>
> odd + odd = even   (the rest of 1 + 1 divided by 2 = 0)
> even + even = even (the rest of 2 + 2 divided by 2 = 0)
> odd + even = odd  (the rest of 1 + 2 divided by  2 = 1)
>
>
>
> Guitar and composition imho, have arithmetic overlap, albeit in a less
> than total sense, which is why I won't have to post my details here :)
>
>
> Guitar is hardest, imo. You need good trained digits!
>
>
>
>
> Looking forward to contributing from time to time.
>
>
> You are welcome,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:09:53 AM UTC+2, JohnM wrote:
>>
>> Bruno asked:
>>   . Is that an absolute truth?
>>
>> By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY
>> agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept better
>> expressions.
>> (Except for "absolute truth" - ha ha).
>> And Teilhard was a great master of words.
>> John M
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>>  Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
>>>
>>> My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
>>> We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever "WE"
>>> accept is "human".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that an absolute truth?
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion, "WE = human" seems to me quite relative. When I
>>> listen to the jumping spiders or the Löbian machines, most seems to
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> *We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are
>>> spiritual beings having a human experience.*
>>> (de Chardin).
>>>
>>>
>>>  What is Mother Nature accepting?
>>>
>>> John M
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brent:
>>>>> I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain
>>>>> peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
>>>>> So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more relatives.
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or le

Re: truth

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno: here we go again (quote from Ronald Reagan).
The "vocabulary" of different (belief?) systems. You seem to abide firmly
at "axioms", meaning not more in MY vocabulary than postulates to make *OUR
*(actual, conventional, ongoing) theories VALID. Changing theories make
axioms invalid.

*HUMAN? *I doubt if we have a universally agreed-upon definition
(and please, count me into the 'universal) standing up to both
'living/nonliving' creatures, computers (as we knew them yesterday -
including the skeletally composed AI)  with all the potentials that can be
filled in future, additionally, as it has been supplied in the past
millennia. Mathematical logic is IMO a human achievement of yesterday. It
is fine and supports our conventional sciences (more than usually presumed
so) but not the 'total' of an infinite view. (What I do not have).
You may say: un-scientific, baseless, etc., I agree.
What I disagree about is a "firm" belief of "we know it all".
Not even 1+1=2. Hence my joke of 1+1=11. Or Brent's 10.
I claim: there are no numbers in Nature, it is us (allow me to call
ourselves: 'humans') representing observations of 'natural' hints with
their ongoing explanations into "number"-related (calculable?)
formulations. Hence (our?) arithmetic.

As I already explained: the (human) genius formulated out of such theories
an ingenious technology that is ALMOST good.
And I bow to that.

John M
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:45 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Bruno:
> *"Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2 are
> just imagining something else."*  -
>  do you mean: "imagining something else
> THAN WHAT YOU WERE *IMAGINING*?" sounds like a claim to some priviledge
> to imagining - only YOUR WAY?
> (I know you will vehemently deny that - ha ha).
>
> To Guitarist:
>  *"It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
> stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11"*
> You made my point - which was to (agnostically) expose that we have no
> approved authority to a ONE AND ONLY opinion.
> Not even within what we may call 'possible'.
>
> John M
>  * *
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> Hi Guitar boy,
>>
>>  On 04 Jul 2012, at 16:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>> Hello Everythinglisters,
>>
>> First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions from
>> time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more musical tendency.
>>
>> It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do stuff
>> like: 1 + 1 = 11
>>
>> If people are sincere about pulling whatever sums they feel like with
>> personal justification, then we might as well say 1 + 1 = 0, with a kind of
>> zen logic, where everything = nothing as a fancy justification.
>>
>>
>> Well in Z_2 = {0, 1}, we do have a law with 1+1 = 0. (modular
>> arithmetic). But 1 is still different from 0. But I get your point.
>>
>>
>> And anybody still willing to assert this could post their bank account
>> details and pin numbers and be freed from arithmetic dictatorship by having
>> their account cleaned out by other everything listers that DO believe in
>> sums, successors etc. as 0 = whatever they want, and the sum of their
>> balance doesn't really matter, as it's only some personal belief shared by
>> a few control freaks.
>>
>>
>> Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2 are
>> just imagining something else. It is not an arguent that a truth is not
>> absolute, but that the notation used to described it can have other
>> interpreations. In the Z_2 structure, which plays a key role in many
>> places: 2 = 0. But 2 does not represent the successor of of the successor
>> of zero, it represents the rest when we divide by the usual number 2. It
>> really means:
>>
>> odd + odd = even   (the rest of 1 + 1 divided by 2 = 0)
>> even + even = even (the rest of 2 + 2 divided by 2 = 0)
>> odd + even = odd  (the rest of 1 + 2 divided by  2 = 1)
>>
>>
>>
>> Guitar and composition imho, have arithmetic overlap, albeit in a less
>> than total sense, which is why I won't have to post my details here :)
>>
>>
>> Guitar is hardest, imo. You need good trained digits!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to contributing from time to time.
>>
>>
>> You are welcome,
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:09:53 AM UTC+2, JohnM wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruno asked:
>>>   . 

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

[John Mikes]

Bruno, thanks for your 'views' expressed to Evgeniy below.
*"...**Why people believe..."  *I think we agreed that no such thing in our
access as a Theory of Everything (omniscience missing) and the figments
scientists believe IN are fables.
I apologize for writing in brief *"Nature"* and not as I usually do: "the
existence, nature, the world, you name it..." and for *'humans'* in a
similar sense, abbreviated from something like: "the portion of the
infinite complexity we have actually  conscious access to..." (and I am not
sure if 'we' - 'you? - have access to all details of other Loebian machines
or jumping bugs how THEY exercise mental functions akin to our thinking in
this restricted format we apply as our present life (please: don't ask!)
However I barge in 'asking': what is *"rationally"? *your word (machine)
theology is just another name. If you copy the (religious/philosophical)
theology, we are not ahead and if you presume the infinite capabilities of
the 'ultimate' Loebian than we don't (can't) understand the term.
(Your last par is a 'human'(!) impersonation of a machine.
Just thinking
JohnM

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  On 08 Jul 2012, at 19:29, John Clark wrote (to Evgenii Rudnyi)
>
> If you want to understand why people are the way they are I don't think
> the Theory-of-Everything would help you much, you'd do much better studding
> Evolutionary Biology, neurology, or computer science.
>
>
> Yes, computer science might help to understand why people are the way they
> are. But computer science, the theory of, and by,  universal machines,
> already must explain, assuming comp, why people believe in fermions and
> bosons, making it a theory of everything, or at least a good candidate for
> it, especially if you take into account computer science *and* computer's
> computer science (that is, what computer can guess or can experience
> without ever being able to justified rationally: what I like to call
> "machine's theology, or "Tarski minus Gödel").
>
> If a machine postulates comp, which by definition is true for her, she can
> already justify rationally, using her bet in comp, why she has beliefs that
> she cannot justify rationally. Comp itself constitutes such a belief.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Oh no!

[John Mikes]

Stephen, a 'belief system' may be reassuring.
I spent a lifetime in active R&D exercising conventional science, till I
lost by belief in many figments of it. It came gradually like one's losing
a religious faith: trying to THINK 'outside the box' and getting nowhere.
(First reflection: I am poorly informed and my conclusions are inaccurate).
Then the extension of our worldview into items still unknown, as
exemplified by the gradual enrichment in our epistemic inventory over the
millennia. We are NOT at the perfection's end...Some more yet has got to
come and I braced myself for surprises.
I cannot recall when and where, but allegedly prof. Higgs repealed his work
at his old age - how sorry it would be if true.
The observations upon which science is based supply only explained
information, accurate and complete to the level of the 'era'. Then
explanations are applied based on assumptions, presumptions, nth level
consequences of such and sometimes recalled/changed.
Bruno's and my agnosticism are based on some basic 'faith' to start from:
his from numerals, arithmetic (I think) mine from a never learnable
infinite complexity of which we only know a portion.
Everybody has a personal choice whether to include the Higgs boson in
his/her personal worldview. And there are many others...

John M




On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Say that it is not so!
>
> http://www.technologyreview.**com/view/428428/higgs-boson-**
> may-be-an-imposter-say-**particle/?ref=rss
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: esse est percipi?

[John Mikes]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  *Esse is not percipi*. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a
> diophantine polynomial equation".
> 
> *St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with the
> Numbers of neo-Platonists. :_(*
> ---
> Study UDA and AUDA, it is exactly the contrary. Universal machines,
> relatively to the arithmetical truth makes the arithmetical reality into
> tuburlent unknowns. And matter still exists but is no more primitive as
> being the condition making collection of universal machines sharing part of
> the sheaves of all local computations.
>
> UDA is an invitation, or challenge to tell me where you think there is a
> flaw, for UDA is the point that if we can survive with a digital brain, at
> some levels, then the physical reality is not the source of the reason why
> we believe in a physical reality. It is a reasoning Stephen, I repeated it
> recently on the FOAR list, please tell me a number between 0 and 7, or 8,
> so that we can agree on what we disagree on.
>

My question is (my) usual: how do you describe *EXIST?*
In my view whatever passes the mental royeaume DOES indeed exist. Not the
physical world, not the "truth" ideas, ANYTHING. You escaped my earlier
question about the "Nature" (or whatever anybody may call it/her) - this
one is attached to it with your Latin caveat above exposing the
questionable 'percipi' what I indeed included as valid for 'esse'.
In the moment when the "infinite complexity" - the ever unknowable totality
- comes into play, no 3rd c.AD equation can vouch for it with all
the unknowable variants/qualia, beyond our 21.c. capabilities - many of
them potentially factoring into the outcome of (polynomial, or not)
arithmetically fitting equations in known numbers. Mathematics disallows
(in number and qualia) unaccountable variants when it comes to equations
(with potential solutions).

Also, when you feel the necesscity to include "arithmetic" with "TRUTH"
then you confessed to the partial validity of it. How about the Not (SO?)
arithmetic truth? deniable?

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

[John Mikes]

Brent (and Stephen): (while I could not 'locate' the relation "on pain of
circularity" - whether it is to explain , or ?) I
identify an *'observer'* ANY*THING* accepting  - A N Y info/relation, while
*conscious(*ness) is generalized (IMO) to responding to such in ANY way.
I agree with NOT assuming "AN" observer (person?) only.
A question: I recalled Descart's sentence as "COGITO..." not "COGNITO..."
which makes a difference. I identified his proof as ANY thinking procedure,
while the "N" inclusion makes it into "percipi" - i.e. being aware of. Last
time I talked to him I did not perceive the 'n'. (Proof: how the little
scoundrels further dismembered the sentence in the old country (very strong
on classical culture) into leaving out the "G" as well: '*coito ergo sum'*.
It makes a lot of sense).
JohnM

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of
> computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requires the
> prior existence of the "you" to select it. The observer (you here)
> effectively is the measure via a self-selection rule. I cannot discount my
> own existence given the immediate fact that I am experiencing myself as
> existing. Descartes' Cognito ergo Sum is a pointed statement of this
> unassailable fact. We cannot put the observer on a level that is emerging
> from the computations if the observer is the one that is selecting the
> class of computations that are generating said observer.
>
>
> How does this comport with Everett's QM which has it that there is no
> unique, persistent "you" to do the selecting.  It seems a simple matter of
> logic that any theory which sets out to explain consciousness cannot assume
> an observer, on pain of circularity.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

[John Mikes]

Posted to
I admire you, Stephen, for writing with such ease about Gödel etc. - in my
agnosticism I would say:
"many' MAY refer to a wider cumulative complexity of similar coomplexities
(like the machine Bruno would call "us") and I never tried to identify
myself (us? humans?) for Bruno's view).
Since I do not stand on the restricted arithmetic base-line, I feel
comfortable NOT to count the 'many'.

*To: 'plurality':* I do not take a "mapping" fundamental. I feel that would
be restrictive into a sectional view.

*Physical reality *is similar. Since I cannot exceed my own domain(s) I
have no way to identify "reality". Bruno's restriction helps.
 John M

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 7/24/2012 1:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> On 7/22/2012 2:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>Many (as implied by the word 
> plural)
> *is not just a number*. (It is at least a Gödel number.) A plurality of
> 1p is a mapping function from some domain to some co-domain (or range). So
> if there is no distinction between the domain and co-domain, what kind of
> map is it? Maybe it is an 
> automorphism,
> but it is not something that allows us to extract a plurality over which
> variation can occur. You are talking as if the 
> variationwas
>  present but not allowing the means for that variation to occur! The use
> of the word "plurality" is thus meaningless as you are using it: "first
> person plural view of physical reality".
> You must show first how it is that the plurality obtains without the
> use of a space if you are going to make claims that there is no space and
> yet plurality (of 1p) is possible. In the explanation that you give there
> is discussion of Moscow, Helsinki and Washington. These are locations that
> exists and have meaning in a wider context. At least there is assumed to be
> a set of possible locations and that the set is not a singleton (such as
> {0}) nor does it collapse into a singleton.
>
>
> Dear Bruno and Friends,
>
> I would like to add more to this portion of a previous post of mine
> (that I have revised and edited a bit).
>
> Let us stipulate that contra my argument above that the "many" of a
> plurality is "just a number". What kind of number does it have to be? It
> cannot be any ordinary integer because it must be able to map some other
> pair of numbers to each other, ala a  Gödel numbering scheme. But this
> presents a problem because it naturally partitions  Gödel numbering schemes
> into separate languages, one for each  Gödel numbering code that is chosen.
> This was pointed out in the Wiki article about
>
> "Lack of uniqueness
>
> A Gödel numbering is not unique, in that for any proof using Gödel
> numbers, there are infinitely many ways in which these numbers could be
> defined.
>
> For example, supposing there are *K* basic symbols, an alternative Gödel
> numbering could be constructed by invertibly mapping this set of symbols
> (through, say, an invertible 
> function
>  *h*) to the set of digits of abijective base-*K* numeral 
> system.
> A formula consisting of a string of *n* symbols [image: s_1 s_2 s_3 \dots
> s_n] would then be mapped to the number
>  [image: h(s_1) \times K^{(n-1)} + h(s_2) \times K^{(n-2)} + \cdots +
> h(s_{n-1}) \times K^1 + h(s_n) \times K^0 .]
>
> In other words, by placing the set of *K* basic symbols in some fixed
> order, such that the *i*th symbol corresponds uniquely to the *i*th digit
> of a bijective base-*K* numeral system, *each formula may serve just as
> the very numeral of its own Gödel number." "
> *
>
> *
> *
>   This lack of uniqueness is a huge weakness! What it does is that it
> implies that ultimately any pair of sufficiently long strings of numbers
> will be equivalent to computations that are bisimilar and this isomorphic
> under functional equivalence. I do not know what kind of isomorphism this
> is or if it is already known.
>
> So is a N -> NxN map identical to N? Did not Russell Standish make
> some comments that where proximate to this idea? What axioms are we
> assuming for this arithmetic?
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Ste

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

[John Mikes]

Dear Russell,
your "urstuff" is a nice belief, like my "infinite complexity".
I feel your remark is not contradictory to my viewing.  - YET:
I am still uncomfortable with 'ontology' what I imagine as the description
of the "AS IS" state in a constantly changing world. Being vs. becoming, a
snapshot.
*Physical* IMO is our ever changing explanatory basis for the poorly
understandable phenomena we conceive time after time and apply math (maybe
more complex than Bruno's integer-based arithmetics?) for such
explanations.
So 'figment' for "matter" is weird, but maybe closer. And 'primitive' is
our ever changing view's past.
(I like the 'infinite hotel': you check in, pay your bill and check out
into the next one).
I think "urstuff" is more than primitive numbers. I never read explanation
on how 'numbers' arose in primitive(?) circumstances, forming the "World".

I guess 'universal computation' means more to you than just
number-churning. Putative is mental activity, - any - covering more domains
of the 'infinite complexity' (pardon me for applying this term) than we
(may?) know of.

Remember: I do not intend to argue with you, you may disregard my remarks,
however I will appreciate your opinion.

John Mikes
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:41:29PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
> > On 7/22/2012 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > >
> > >Usually I restrict "substance" for physicalist primitive ontology,
> > >like atoms, particles or strings, which does not exist primitively
> > >in the comp theory, but should be derived (by the conclusion of
> > >the UDA).
>
> (Sorry for replying to Stephen's post - I can't respond to Bruno's
> directly because of his non-standard email client)
>
> Actually, this is a useful clarification, as it is a point that has
> confused me.
>
> So paraphrasing in my words, what Bruno is saying is:
>
> "primitive" = ontological basis of reality ("urstuff" as I put it)
> "matter" = atoms, particles, strings that appear in physical theory
>
> COMP entails matter is not primitive means that the physical things we
> observe
> (atoms, electrons etc) must be emergent phenomena from whatever the
> urstuff really is. I have little problem with this statement, as it is
> fairly clear that atoms are emergent constructs, and one suspects
> things like electrons, or even strings might be too. Perhaps knots or
> some other topological defects of space-time (which is itself an
> emergent phenomenon of relationships between events).
>
> Of course, COMP includes the arithmetic realism proposition. Bruno
> claims this is just a statment of the truth of arithmetical statement
> independent of what you or I think, ie that it is not an ontological
> commitment.
>
> But another way of saying it is that it _is_ an ontological
> commitment. The urstuff is the natural numbers.
>
> In fact I think COMP is saying something rather more important. It
> doesn't matter what the urstuff is, so long as it supports universal
> computation. Physical phenomena must be derivable from the first
> person account, and it is useless to speculate on the nature of
> urstuff beyond its capability to support universal computation.
>
> Thinking about David Deutsch's point further, and the observation that
> we don't see hypercomputation like the infinity hotel, we can say what
> the urstuff is not - it is not a hypercomputer like the infinity
> hotel, for instance, but we can't say which of the many equivalent
> structures supporting universal computation it is.
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Free will: a definition

[John Mikes]

Stephen,
just a brief remark to the discussion:

if the 'agent' has complete info (it never occurs) it naturally coerces its
decision (*will, choice*). We call *good-bad* according to OUR incomplete
thinking. Same goes for the *"rational - irrational"* pair.
We can NEVER have complete information - we are restricted in our mental
capabilities from exploiting the total infinite complexity.
All is condensed into: (as *R RAM wrote:*
*With incomplete information, a rational being will make the best choice
under the available information and would beat an irrational being most of
the time )*
(ambient lingo wording).

My position stands: there is NO free will, only ALMOST(!)
and maybe considered 'some freedom carrying' will, (just as I did deny
'random' and got an 'almost': "under certain (given) circumstances").
The term YOUR FREE WILL arose from the faith-based authoritarian
requirement to raise responsibility - hence a guilt feeling for a
make-believe punishment (in eternity!).

John M

**




On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Dear Russell,
>
> In our definition of the concept of "free will", it seems that we need
> to elaborate a bit on the notions of coercion, autonomy and choice. From
> what I have studied, the concept of a player used in game theory works
> well. Free will is the ability for an autonomous agent to make uncoercered
> choices from a set of simultaneously inspectable choices.
>
>
> On 7/30/2012 7:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:08:29AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
 Free-will is an informal term use in many informal setting.
 religious people defined it often by the ability to choose
 consciously between doing bad things or not, and people from the
 law can invoke it as a general precondition for making sense of
 the responsibility idea. In cognitive science we can at least
 approximate it in different ways, and basically, with
 computationalism it is the ability to make choice in absence of
 complete information, and knowledge of that incomplete feature.

>>> I'm not clear on why you emphasize incomplete information?  What
>>> would constitute complete information? and why how would that
>>> obviate 'free will'.  Is it coercive?
>>>
>>> With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal
>> choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being.
>>
>> Conversely, with incomplete information, a rational being will make a
>> wrong choice, or simply fail to make a choice at all, and so is
>> usually beaten by an irrational being.
>>
>> This is where the idea that free will is the capability to act
>> irrationally (or as I put it "do something stupid") comes from. There
>> are definite evolutionary advantages to acting irrationally some of
>> the time (though not all the time :).
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Naming and Intensionality

[John Mikes]

Stephen and Bruno:
enjoyable reading. About that darn "intelligence"?
I have my roots in Latin so my take is "inter-lego" - to READ between the
lines (or words). I add some (believed) points to it: we like to go to the
utmost of our 'knowledge - base' with (intelligent-ha ha) thinking and HAVE
(hopefully) a chance to "shave off" that borderline towards a bit more.
This comes in with 'creativity' as well.
So "OUR" (whomever Bruno allows to include for 'us') - not machine -
intelligence goes "a bit" beyond the hardware, whatever we postulate for
such. (A reason why I deny/ at least doubt/  some  "artificial
intelligence": we cannot 'program' or even 'read' beyond the limitations of
our existing knowledge).
Sorry, Bruno, in my (believed!) infinite complexity I must go beyond any
'machine' pattern and if you just include it into your 'universal' qualia I
will not call it a 'machine'. But* *this is a 'naming question". Semantics?
*Description* vs The *Thing* Itself (if we allow such).

With omniscience there is no intelligence. (J. Mikes)

Cheerio
JohnM

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 8/3/2012 8:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 03 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>  Dear Bruno,
>
> On 8/3/2012 3:55 AM in post "Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead",
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  There is no recipe for intelligence. Only for domain competence.
> Intelligence can "diagonalize" again all recipes.
>
>
> A very good point! Intelligence is thus forever beyond a horizon or
> boundary within which recursively countable is possible. This is exactly
> the idea that I see implied by "relativizing" the Tennenbaum theorem. For
> any kind of "something" ( I do not know what it is named at the moment)
> there is always a recursively countable name that that something has for
> itself. Recall what Wittgenstein wrote about 
> names:
>
>
> "According to descriptivist theories, proper names either are synonymous
> with descriptions, or have their reference determined by virtue of the
> name's being associated with a description or cluster of descriptions that
> an object uniquely satisfies. Kripke rejects both these kinds of
> descriptivism. He gives several examples purporting to render descriptivism
> implausible as a theory of how names get their reference determined (e.g.,
> surely Aristotle could have died at age two and so not satisfied any of the
> descriptions we associate with his name, and yet it would seem wrong to
> deny that he was Aristotle). As an alternative, Kripke adumbrated a causal
> theory of reference, according to which *a name refers to an object by
> virtue of a causal connection with the object as mediated through
> communities of speakers. He points out that proper names, in contrast to
> most descriptions, are rigid designators: A proper name refers to the named
> object in every possible world in which the object exists, while most
> descriptions designate different objects in different possible worlds.*For 
> example, 'Nixon' refers to the same person in every possible world in
> which Nixon exists, while 'the person who won the United States
> presidential election of 1968' could refer to Nixon, Humphrey, or others in
> different possible worlds. Kripke also raised the prospect of a posteriori
> necessities — facts that are necessarily true, though they can be known
> only through empirical investigation. Examples include "Hesperus is
> Phosphorus", "Cicero is Tully", "Water is H2O" and other identity claims
> where two names refer to the same object."
>
>
> Most machine's possible properties are way beyond the recursively
> enumerable. For example the property of being able to compute the factorial
> function is itself not computable.
>
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
> Yes, and this is why properties (resulting from process!) are
> "special". Those that are not recursively enumerable form the 
> orbits(?)
>  within which the Perfect named objects are
> stable.
>
>
>
>
>
> A name is "perfect" if it is a recursively enumerable representation
> of an object. This definition is required by the postulate that "reality is
> that which is incontrovertible" for all inter-communicating observers". We
> could define an observer as any system capable of implementing in its
> dynamics a computational simulation of itself. Most objects that exist
> cannot do this on their own, a brick for example. But consider that at a
> deeper level, a brick is a lattice of atoms that supports an entire level
> of dynamics - the electrostatic interactions of the electrons and protons
> for example - and at this level there is sufficient structure to support an
> organizational equivalent of a computation of a brick.
> This takes your "substitution level" idea another step!
>
>

Re: Free will: a definition

[John Mikes]

Dear Cowboy,
thanks for your teaching on the repetitive (rock-related??) musical
experience. Since I am strongly anchored into the past 3-5 centuries'
organized 'music' I do not appreciate it.
However it punches into the domain of what is callable a Free Will (not
really, as I will explain).
Bruno's "drink or drink not" is a 'free' *choice* - not at all explained if
circumstances etc. coerced the decision, or not. A choice between GIVENS.
Your music is penetration into the unknowable, the 'given' part maybe
there, but not as contemplatively, like tea-drinking. Subconscious? That is
a good buzz-word for escapes from "I dunno".
Consider that in our 'mind' (what is it?) there is more than we 'know
about' and the transition into the unknown is like in my other post to
Stephen and Bruno today.
Don't take me seriously: I speak beyond my knowables.

Thanks again for your musical explanations

John M

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not want to suggest a definition, but have a question concerning comp
> frame. When I improvise, often in Jazz or Rock context the free will
> question becomes fuzzy in this way:
>
> Sometimes you hit a point where all the patterns/formulas you've learned;
> i.e. the kind of stuff you can play in your sleep, all the pre-calculated,
> time-proven stuff, runs out... at which point you risk repeating yourself
> in redundancy. At this point, I am forced to take a risk and plunge into
> the icy waters of all things I haven't played yet.
>
> When it works, it feels like magic as instant composition; but even when
> it doesn't, which makes up the great majority of these situations, and a
> technical error results from forced decision, as Brent says, out of time
> constraint, you can "ride the mistake". And on some occasions it can change
> the whole musical situation and take the band in a different direction:
> like we wanted to close after so many choruses, but we extend "because
> somebody found that weird thing" and riding it was pretty nice and it
> echoes into coda and ending, everybody quoting it.
>
> So from 1p perspective the technical error is not intended. Not a free
> decision and rather embarrassing, taken out of context.
>
> But this can reverse from point of view of the band/audience after the
> mistake has proven a fruitful input for some new groove. Then everybody
> agrees it was cool, and that we fully intended and meant that to happen in
> a "that's what music is about" kind of way. But then it can also be a
> random bullshit mistake; not fruitful at all. Strangely, even though I
> decide to "take the plunge", I don't really feel like I'm in control of
> this. But if venue, band, audience is cool; I definitely control it more,
> than when a bunch of professors are evaluating me.
>
> So my question for weak comp frame: who/what else is in control when 1p
> makes a forced, time-constrained decision?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>>  On 01 Aug 2012, at 18:23, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>>
>> We may be overthinking things here.  What's wrong with defining it as the
>> capacity to make choices when more than one option is available?
>>
>>
>> ... from the point of view of the knowing subject. I am OK with that
>> definition. You have to add "from the point of view of the subject" to
>> prevent the idea that a God, or the Physical Theory makes it like at some
>> (low) level, only one option exists. Yet, it is not because some God or
>> some Supermachine, or just your friends, can predict if you will drink tea
>> or coffee that you will not exercise free will by choosing the option which
>> satisfies you the most.
>> Two options can be enough. Free will is the ability to choose between
>> drinking tea or not drinking tea.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/1/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
 Yes - and rationality often does not help much. In such situations, it
 is often better to make a fast decision than a good one. Only
 irrational agents can make fast decisions.

>>>
>>> Almost all real decisions (even in chess) are time constrained.  How can
>>> it be rational to wait too long for your decision to matter and irrational
>>> to make a quick decision on incomplete information, on incomplete analysis?
>>>
>>>
>>>
 > From the responses I've received on this list, I don't think people
 are using the term rational in the same way it is used in
 economics. Flipping a coin is never rational, although it may well be
 the best thing to do.

>>> Random moves are optimum in many games and provably so.  What meaning of
>>> 'rational' are you using?
>>>
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 fr

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

[John Mikes]

Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied.

My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a - more?)
god(s) to deny. - "god" is a word still looking to be identified. As we
read most 'denyers' assign the ultimate origin to such concept. Me, too:
the infinite complexity (beyond our capability to comprehend). Does it have
'free will'? or 'conscious mind'? logical concluding capability? I am not
sure 'it'(?) *"has"* anything. Not in our terms at least. The *'infinite'
complexity* is a mere 'everything' in relation to everything beyond our
concepts.
Bruno had a 'cute' definition for theology (I could not repeat it now) and
called 'us' gods. Nobody can deny his right to do so.
Denigrating faith is a pastime for the mental elite, yet without faith (and
the rules ensured for the 'believers') humanity would not have survived so
far in it's wickedness, brutality, or simply by selfishness.
It was a small price paid for the priests and prophets to help humanity
survive. Did it slip out? you bet. Always.

Please remember: I take 'existing' in terms of anything, having occurred in
somebodies mind as a (rationale, or weird?) idea. Impossibilities included.
(And so far nobody answered my question satisfactorily (for me) to show a
justification for the (religious?) god-concept from *outside the box* (not
induced by some hint to any faith-related momenta, dream, etc.).  So 'god'
exists IMO, because it is set into many minds (even if not identically).)

It is a long winded topic, not likely to close with agreement.

John M




On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
>
>  On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
>>   > Define  "theology"
>>
>
> The study of something that does not exist.
>
>
> Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine "theology" can be defined
> by something which is supposed to be responsible, willingly or not, for my
> existence, and which I cannot prove to  exist. I remeber having already
> some times ago provided this definition.
>
> Then, the logic of theology is given, at the propositional level, by G*
> minus G. (if you have read my posts on those modal logics and Solovay
> theorem). For example <> t (consistency, ~[]f) belongs to G* minus G.
> Consistency is true for the machine, but it cannot prove it. Yet the
> machine can guess it, hope it, find it or produce it as true with some
> interrogation mark.
>
> Theology is the study of the transcendent truth, which can be defined, in
> a first approximation, by the non provable (by the machine) truth.
>
>> Define "God"
>>
>
> The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who created
> the universe. If you define God,  as so many fans of the word but not the
> idea do,
>
>
> I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception of God.
> This confirms what I have already explained. Atheism is a variant of
> christianism. They defend the same conception of God than the Christians,
> as you do all the time.
> Note that philosophers use often the term "God" in the general and
> original sense of theology: as being, by definition, the transcendental
> cause of everything.
>
>
>
>  as "a force greater than myself" then I am a devout believer because I
> believe in gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force. I
> believe in bulldozers too.
>
>
> But I have already told you that God is supposed to be responsible for our
> existence; which is not the case for the bulldozer. But gravity and
> physical force/matter could have been a more serious answer, as it describe
> the perhaps primary physical world, and that can obey the definition of God
> I gave, for a physicalist, and is indeed again a common belief of
> christians and atheists. I am agnostic, and correct computationalist are
> "atheists" with respect to such material God.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno,
congrats to yur interjected question: *"What does not exist then?"*
It is cute.
If I really HAVE to reply: *"The R e s t of the world".* And if you insist
to spell it out, you just 'create' it. 

I appreciate your mostly agreeing words, one question though:
how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?*
somebody suggested to say 'organism' au lieu de machine, but it is not a
fair transformation.
Finally I am too ignorant to appreciate 'ontological' in my worldview:
in an *everything* that constantly changes it is hard to see 'being' vs.
'becoming'.

John M

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>  On 05 Aug 2012, at 22:33, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied.
>
> My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a - more?)
> god(s) to deny. - "god" is a word still looking to be identified. As we
> read most 'denyers' assign the ultimate origin to such concept. Me, too:
> the infinite complexity (beyond our capability to comprehend). Does it have
> 'free will'? or 'conscious mind'? logical concluding capability? I am not
> sure 'it'(?) *"has"* anything.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>  Not in our terms at least. The *'infinite' complexity* is a mere
> 'everything' in relation to everything beyond our concepts.
> Bruno had a 'cute' definition for theology (I could not repeat it now) and
> called 'us' gods. Nobody can deny his right to do so.
>
>
> It is frequent for the mystics. I usually distinguish the outer god (=
> what is ultimately "really real") and the inner God, which is the aspect of
> the outer God which might be living in each if us, and perhaps be us.
>
>
>
>  Denigrating faith is a pastime for the mental elite, yet without faith
> (and the rules ensured for the 'believers') humanity would not have
> survived so far in it's wickedness, brutality, or simply by selfishness.
>
>
> I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't
> think we can live more than one second without some belief in some God. The
> Löbian machine, when doing inference induction on themselves are bounded up
> to be "theological" as a simple consequence of incompleteness. Such Löbian
> "bet-doing" machines are bounded up to discover that truth is beyond their
> ability of justification. that will drive a natural curiosity in them, and
> also will make them forever unsatisfied, and growing on transfinite ladders
> of goals.
>
>
>
>  It was a small price paid for the priests and prophets to help humanity
> survive. Did it slip out? you bet. Always.
>
> Please remember: I take 'existing' in terms of anything, having occurred
> in somebodies mind as a (rationale, or weird?) idea. Impossibilities
> included.
>
>
> What does not exist then?
>
>
>
>  (And so far nobody answered my question satisfactorily (for me) to show
> a justification for the (religious?) god-concept from *outside the box*(not 
> induced by some hint to any faith-related momenta, dream, etc.).  So
> 'god' exists IMO, because it is set into many minds (even if not
> identically).)
>
>
> This assumes mind, persons, at the ontological level. It seems you make
> things more complex by not delineating what is existing ontologically (like
> numbers with comp) and epistemologically like matter, dreams,
> consciousness, etc.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> It is a long winded topic, not likely to close with agreement.
>
> John M
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
>>
>>  On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>   > Define  "theology"
>>>
>>
>> The study of something that does not exist.
>>
>>
>> Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine "theology" can be
>> defined by something which is supposed to be responsible, willingly or not,
>> for my existence, and which I cannot prove to  exist. I remeber having
>> already some times ago provided this definition.
>>
>> Then, the logic of theology is given, at the propositional level, by G*
>> minus G. (if you have read my posts on those modal logics and Solovay
>> theorem). For example <> t (consistency, ~[]f) belongs to G* minus G.
>> Consistency is true for the machine, but it cannot prove it. Yet the

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
your reply is appreciable (I donot use the pun: remarkable and write
'remarks' to it);

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Dear Bruno,
> congrats to yur interjected question: *"What does not exist then?"*
> It is cute.
> If I really HAVE to reply: *"The R e s t of the world".* And if you
> insist to spell it out, you just 'create' it. 
>
> 

>   I appreciate your mostly agreeing words, one question though:
> how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?*
>
>
> Universal machine are confronted with many problems. Avoiding looping,
> avoiding crashing, avoiding inconsistencies, avoiding incorrectness. They
> have duties: adding themselves and multiplying themselves, with all the
> relative troubles that result from the impossible "simple" merging of the
> addition and multiplcations laws (with the numbers: I could have taken
> abstraction and application with the lambda terms instead).
> The Löbian machine knows that she is universal, and so can grasp the
> preceding paragraph, and get in that way even much more questions, and she
> can discover even more sharply her abyssal ignorance. Löbianity is the step
> where the universal machine knows that whatever she could know more, that
> will only make her more ignorant with respect to the unknown. Yet, the
> machine at that stage can also intuit more and more the reason and
> necessity of that ignorance, and with comp, study the approximate
> mathematical description of parts of it.
>
JM: looks to me that Univ. Mach. is a fictional charater like Alice in
Wunderland, equipped with whatever you need to make it work. Like (my)
infinite complexity.

>
> somebody suggested to say 'organism' au lieu de machine, but it is not a
> fair transformation.
>
OK.

>   Finally I am too ignorant to appreciate 'ontological' in my worldview:
> in an *everything* that constantly changes it is hard to see 'being' vs.
> 'becoming'.
>
But how can "everything" change? You can only change relatively to
something else.---

I think that change is an experience from inside. It follows, I think, from
the hypothesis that we might survive through a computer emulation (my
working hypothesis).
The everything is the being, and the change, or the becoming, or the
creation and the annihilation, is how the everything looks from inside, in
amnesic state with respect of the "everything" somehow.
Universal machine are not necessarily just curious, they can be anxious
too. They want to know if there is a pilot in the plane and a ground under
their foot.

>  And then there is nothing a universal machine can't be more in love than
> ... another universal machine. And then the tendency to reproduce and
> multiply, in many directions, that they inherit from the numbers and which
> leads to even more complexity and life, I would say.
>
The arithmetical reality is full of life, populated by many sorts of
universal numbers, with many possible sort of relations, and this put a
sort of mess in the antic Platonia, and leads to transfinite unboundable
complexity indeed.

>
> Bruno
>

JM: intriguing idea about the 'change', indeed. I feel English semantics in
it (French is even worse: changer is really "from..into") - what I
understand as my non-Anglo 'change' is a constant alteration of
observables, some would put into the meaning of 'life' or 'creation'.
>From "inside"? a loose cannon: if I am observing something from 'outside of
it' I still can see it change.
You may argue that I am still within a larger 'inside'.
Sorry to get bugged down into semantical bickering.
John M



>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

[John Mikes]

Let me try to shorten the maze and copy only whatever I want to reflect to.
Sorry if it causes hardship - JM
-
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>   On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:

>  how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?*
>>
>>
>> Universal machine are confronted with many problems
>>
> The Löbian machine knows that she is universal, and so can grasp the
preceding paragraph, and get in that way even much more questions, and she
can discover even more sharply her abyssal ignorance. Löbianity is the step
where the universal machine knows that whatever she could know more, that
will only make her more ignorant with respect to the unknown. Yet, the
machine at that stage can also intuit more and more the reason and
necessity of that ignorance, and with comp, study the approximate
mathematical description of parts of it.

>JM: looks to me that Univ. Mach. is a fictional charater like Alice in
> Wunderland, equipped with whatever you need to make it work. Like (my)
> infinite complexity.
>
> The difference is that once you agree on addition and multiplication, you
> can prove the existence of universal machine, and you can bet that you can
> implement them in the physical reality, as our concrete physical personal
> computer, and cells, brain etc, illustrate.
>
*JM: don't you see the weak point in your *
*"once you agree"?*
*I don't know what to agree in (agnosticism) so NO PROOF*
*- What our 'cells, brain etc. illustrate' is (our?) figment. *

>
> BM: I think that change is an experience from inside. It follows, I think,
> from the hypothesis that we might survive through a computer emulation (my
> working hypothesis).
>
*JM: If I watch you to put on weight, I am not inside you.*

> And then there is nothing a universal machine can't be more in love
>> than ... another universal machine. And then the tendency to reproduce and
>> multiply, in many directions, that they inherit from the numbers and which
>> leads to even more complexity and life, I would say.
>>
> The arithmetical reality is full of life, populated by many sorts of
> universal numbers, with many possible sort of relations, and this put a
> sort of mess in the antic Platonia, and leads to transfinite unboundable
> complexity indeed.
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
> *JM: I don't want to bore you by "where did that obscure "LIFE" come
from? What is it?" and how do you know what a universal (machine? number?)
thinks/feels/wants/kisses? *
*because you are ONE? OK, but not the only kind that may be, - I suppose.
Do you deny that there may be other kinds of universal anythings? what do
THEY love most? *

>...But observable is an internal notion. Nobody can observe the
> "Universe", by definition of "Universe". --  --*??? --  ---*
>
>  JM: You may argue that I am still within a larger 'inside'.
> BM: Indeed. You see the point.
>

*JM: but in such case I've changed the perspective and my conclusions are
not comparable. And about 'a' UNIVERSE?*
*In my narrative of a 'Bigbang' story I visualize unlimited number and
quality of universes. Some may be able to observe others. "We" are too
simplistic for that. And - our thinking is adjusted to such simplicity, I
am not proud to say so. Agnostic? Ignorant?*

>
>  You are welcome.
>
> Bruno

>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Dasein

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
I admire your perseverence and also of others keeping pace of Roger's
incredible flood of posts. I confess to have fallen out if not by other
reasons: lack of time to read (not to mention: comprehend) all that
'wisdom' he includes into this list over the past week or so.

One remark - and I am not so sure about being right: "DASEIN" in my (almost
mothertongue German) may not reflect the "DA" = *there* plus "SEIN" *to be*,
rather (- and again I hide behind my second 'almost' of half century in the
US:)  - -  *"THE EXISTENCE"*.

I feel Heidegger (whom I did not study) does not imply a spacial, or
locational momentum by using 'Dasein' for a simple 'Sein'. He might have in
mind the difference between the  existing vs. the not existing. It also has
a rythmical ease vs. a short 'sein' what the English put by the 'to' and
the French in a longer 1.5-syllable(?) tre.

JohnM



On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote:
>
>
> Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below
> by using the word "dasein".  "Being there ".
> Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the
> world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there.
>
>
>
> I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you
> read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion.
> Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a
> machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of
> machine, or in any third person objective term.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you
> seem to speak of the world and mind
> as objects.  But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world
> and mind as we live them,
> not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds.
>
>
> The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with
> objective and subjective property.
>
>
>
>
> It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving
> in.
>
> Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating
> it.
>
>
> But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to their
> appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more importantly to
> what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please read the papers
> as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more than 1500
> years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality is a non
> computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can test. So my
> main point is that comp is a testable theory.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/15/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
>
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Dasein

[John Mikes]

Back to the language-misunderstandings!
 *"There is a problem"* does it mean *NOT HERE*, but *THERE* do I see the
problem, or rather (as I do guess):
- *a problem exists* - ?
German is not English. "*Das DASEIN*" is not  the infinitive with a local
monitor,:( "da sein")  rather a composite *NOUN.
*
John M
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Roger  wrote:

>  Hi John Mikes
>
> I think Heidegger simply made up a new word for his purposes, where
> since da=there,
> and sein = being, then dasein is in Heideggers glossary "being there.
>
>
> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/17/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-17, 16:10:53
> *Subject:* Re: Dasein
>
>   Bruno,
> I admire your perseverence and also of others keeping pace of Roger's
> incredible flood of posts. I confess to have fallen out if not by other
> reasons: lack of time to read (not to mention: comprehend) all that
> 'wisdom' he includes into this list over the past week or so.
> �
> One remark - and I am not so sure about being right: "DASEIN" in my
> (almost mothertongue German)爉ay not reflect the "DA" = *there* plus
> "SEIN" *to be*, rather (- and again I hide behind my second 'almost' of
> half century in the US:)� - - �*"THE EXISTENCE"*.
> �
> I feel Heidegger (whom I did not study) does not imply a spacial, or
> locational momentum by using 'Dasein' for a simple 'Sein'. He might have in
> mind the difference between the 爀xisting爒s. the not existing. It also has a
> rythmical ease vs. a short 'sein' what the English put by the 'to' and the
> French in a longer 1.5-syllable(?) tre.
> �
> JohnM
>
>
> �
>  On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>>  On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below
>> by using the word "dasein".� "Being there ".
>> Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the
>> world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you
>> read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion.�
>> Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a
>> machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of
>> machine, or in any third person objective term.
>>
>>
>>
>>  �
>> �
>>
>> 
>> �
>> �
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>> �
>> This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you
>> seem to speak of the world and mind
>> as objects.� But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world
>> and mind as we live them,
>> not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds.
>>
>>
>> The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with
>> objective and subjective property.�
>>
>>
>>
>>   �
>> It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving
>> in.�
>> �
>> Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but爊ot actually eating
>> it.
>>
>>
>> But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to
>> their appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more
>> importantly to what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please
>> read the papers as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more
>> than 1500 years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality
>> is a non computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can
>> test. So my main point is that comp is a testable theory.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  �
>> �
>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/15/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>>
>> �
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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

Re: Stephen and Bruno

[John Mikes]

Dear Roger,

(re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense
educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this
list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better
distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well established and
decades-long working ensemble of the list - on other grounds.

The participants on this list are strong minds and well established, you
have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger into
close-to-religious belief systems, which may be a definitional problem
(e.g. Bruno's theology and god, etc.).
You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the majority
is closer to your own belief system. YET:
Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your posting
fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy!
Please, consider this a friendly remark.
John Mikes

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno and Stephen
>
> I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.
>
> Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
> post!  Why are you so wrong.
>
> Roger
>
>
> I *(am?)* glad Roger cleared that up.  :-)
>
> Brent
> "Shut up he explained."
> --- Ring Lardner
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Stephen and Bruno

[John Mikes]

Stephen, my stance as well on (even controversial) argumentation. HOWEVER
(isn't one everywhere?)
the 'advancement' one achieves by certain explanations might 'color' one's
own ideas into shades unwanted. If you read a well formulated argument it
inevitably sticks in your mind and later is hard to separate. A reason why
most religious people cannot accept logical (scientific) refutation and
fall back into old meme superstition.

I appreciate Roger's knowledgeability in ancient (mostly idealistic)
theories but his fundamental color is biblical FAITH. I know him from
another (nonreligious) list, where I asked the moderator to curtail the
amount of those overwhelmingly religious postings - and he did.
Roger is still on, but hiding some of his true colors (mostly). (A reason
why I refrained from responding to his posts. I want to keep friendly to
that other list, too.)

You are absolutely right about the topical invigorating by the deluge of
posts - add to it that Roger starts from a one-sided position only. Most
discussions on the Everything list are also one-sided, but as in the past -
from ANOTHER side. (Bruno is close to faithfulness, not a formal religion
though, but his mind-body is close to a 'soul' belief.)

I used to be a Catholic, then reincarnationalistic (Ouija-board fan), now I
can't include into my ongoing worldview *(agnosticism, based on the
'infinite complexity', - to us  unknowable in toto)* WHAT may remain after
death of our (human? with trillion microbial biomes) complexity that is
destroyed - reshaped *AS a memory of ourselves*.
Which part would 'remember' and 'respond' to a destroyed complexity (us)
after "we are gone"? - Surviving parts MAY connect to different
complexities and 'live'(?) as such.
It is a pity that Adam and Eve are not 'real'.

And do not forget my distinction for the physical world (as we pretend to
know it): *a figment of yesterday's stance*.
Leibnitz etc.? I respect those oldies of those (their) times.

Best to you
John

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 8/21/2012 11:02 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> (re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense
> educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this
> list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better
> distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well established and
> decades-long working ensemble of the list - on other grounds.
>
> The participants on this list are strong minds and well established, you
> have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger into
> close-to-religious belief systems, which may be a definitional problem
> (e.g. Bruno's theology and god, etc.).
> You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the majority
> is closer to your own belief system. YET:
> Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your posting
> fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy!
> Please, consider this a friendly remark.
> John Mikes
>
>
> Dear John,
>
> I think that is is sometimes a good thing to have use shaken out of
> our doldrums! I like Roger's contributions! They have already helped be
> make some great advances in my own work. ;-)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bruno and Stephen
>>
>> I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.
>>
>> Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
>> post!  Why are you so wrong.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>> I *(am?)* glad Roger cleared that up.  :-)
>>
>> Brent
>> "Shut up he explained."
>> --- Ring Lardner
>>
>> --
>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must

intuition

[John Mikes]

Brent Meeker wrote on list:
*Intuition is when a seemingly true proposition pops into your head and you
aren't aware of any preceding thought process leading to it.  According to
(you?) computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is
intuition*.
Brent

Dear Brent,

to 'your' part: is an urge to find some solution one of your "thought
processes"?
In speculation you may not realize the train of thoughts leading to
whatever is popping up as a solution. It may happen even WITHOUT the
urgency I mentioned.
Let us say: Just an 'idea' pops up - it may be called intuition.
If you are ordered, you may assign it to problems that occupied your mind
lately.

To 'computers': whenever a computer "produces" a result it is
algorithmically based on data IN the hardware/software (you may call it the
'awareness of the computer.)
Proper semantics of new (developing?) territories is of paramount
importance.
You are usually VERY clear on such: would your AI agree to such definition,
added:
a suiting ID for intuition as well?
(I might have a hard time to identify intuition. The closest I may come up
to NOW is:
we may cut into peripheral 'shaving' into the limits of our knowledge (I
call that "creativity") and that may combine into existing questions as
callable 'intuition').
JohnM

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Stephen and Bruno

[John Mikes]

In this case: my apologies
JM

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi John Mikes
>
> Somebody else on this list must have written that sour remark.
> It wasn't I.
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/22/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
>  - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-21, 11:02:33
>  *Subject:* Re: Stephen and Bruno
>
>   Dear Roger,
> �
> (re:燘rent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense
> educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this
> list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better
> distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well established and
> decades-long working ensemble of the list - on other grounds.
> �
> The爌articipants on this list are strong minds and well established, you
> have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger into
> close-to-religious belief systems, which may be a燿efinitional problem (e.g.
> Bruno's theology and god, etc.).
>  You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the
> majority is closer to your own belief system. YET:
> Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your posting
> fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy!
> Please, consider this a friendly remark.
> John Mikes
>
>  On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bruno and Stephen
>>
>> I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.
>>
>> Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
>> post!  Why are you so wrong.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>> I *(am?)* glad Roger cleared that up.� :-)
>>
>> Brent
>> "Shut up he explained."
>> 牋� --- Ring Lardner
>>
>>  --
>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>  --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The hypocracy of materialism

[John Mikes]

Dear Roger,
I tried to keep out from your 'everything' but now you address me and I do
not run away;
No, I am not a materialist and do not 'reject' god - I simply cannot find
that concept identifiable in my (present) world view. So I do not call
myself an 'atheist'.
 Unfortunately with the other 'John' (Clark) who replied, we are not in
concert about all, although I value his thinking a lot.
I appreciate the figment 'physical world' and most ideas that pertain(ed)
to it, including conventional (and newer) physical branches, except the
bio-conclusions based on so little we think we know about.
You have lots of good replies, people inclined to join the belief system
you represent may accept many of them.
You are right, I have no idea what 'mind' might be, (nor matter, for that
matter, the ultimate dissection of which is providing totally non-matterly
ingredients - unless you call non particulate items particles and think
that simply means matter).
I do not intend to repeat my former post, - you did - so that is all I want
to reply now.
I believe one thing for sure: we do not know more than we do. We gather
additional knowledge over the millennia and do that still, not knowing
whether our explanations fit the explanatee at all. We use our 'mind'
(logic of it) and THINK that is accurate in the 'matter'.

Have a good time

JohnM




On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi John,
>
> If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to
> do.
> But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological
> firewall between mind and matter. Naturally, it cannot solve
> the mind/body problem, and has no clue what mind or God is,
> but demands proof of any religious statement
> or concept. Is that hypocracy or what ?
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/23/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Stephen P. King 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:12:13
> *Subject:* Re: Stephen and Bruno
>
>   Hi John,
>
> I have well functioning delete and spam filter buttons that I can use
> if things get out of hand on my end. ;-)
>
> On 8/22/2012 3:23 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Stephen, my stance as well on (even controversial) argumentation. HOWEVER
> (isn't one everywhere?)
> the 'advancement' one achieves by certain explanations might 'color' one's
> own ideas into shades unwanted. If you read a well formulated argument it
> inevitably sticks in your mind and later is hard to separate. A reason why
> most religious people cannot accept logical (scientific) refutation and
> fall back into old meme superstition.
>
> I appreciate Roger's knowledgeability in ancient (mostly idealistic)
> theories but his fundamental color is biblical FAITH. I know him from
> another (nonreligious) list, where I asked the moderator to curtail the
> amount of those overwhelmingly religious postings - and he did.
> Roger is still on, but hiding some of his true colors (mostly). (A reason
> why I refrained from responding to his posts. I want to keep friendly to
> that other list, too.)
>
> You are absolutely right about the topical invigorating by the deluge of
> posts - add to it that Roger starts from a one-sided position only. Most
> discussions on the Everything list are also one-sided, but as in the past -
> from ANOTHER side. (Bruno is close to faithfulness, not a formal religion
> though, but his mind-body is close to a 'soul' belief.)
>
> I used to be a Catholic, then reincarnationalistic (Ouija-board fan), now
> I can't include into my ongoing worldview *(agnosticism, based on the
> 'infinite complexity', - to us  unknowable in toto)* WHAT may remain
> after death of our (human? with trillion microbial biomes) complexity that
> is destroyed - reshaped *AS a memory of ourselves*.
> Which part would 'remember' and 'respond' to a destroyed complexity (us)
> after "we are gone"? - Surviving parts MAY connect to different
> complexities and 'live'(?) as such.
> It is a pity that Adam and Eve are not 'real'.
>
> And do not forget my distinction for the physical world (as we pretend to
> know it): *a figment of yesterday's stance*.
> Leibnitz etc.? I respect those oldies of those (their) times.
>
> Best to you
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>>  On 8/21/2012 11:02 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Dear Roger,
>>
>> (re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

[John Mikes]

Brent wrote:

*I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively
affect cancer cells.*
*
*Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later-on
knowledge beyond our present inventory.
Besides: e.g. *Iodo Uracyl* attacks (cancer-) tumor cells selectively, used
mostly in dermatology. Is it unique???

Your second par is perfect. Thank you

JohnM


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/29/2012 9:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>> Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put
>> your finger on the right spot with: "though maybe not as much". Because
>> given all the toxic compounds from burning carbon based plant matter, the
>> question is why the "smoking cannabis leads to lung cancer" evidence is
>> much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to be, compared with
>> tobacco smoking.
>>
>> This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis
>> smokers, allows for the plausible conjecture that there is an
>> anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your bloodstream, irrespective of
>> method of admin; of course smoking augments risk)..
>>
>
> I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively
> affect cancer cells.
>
> Survey the studies, these harms are minute compared to risky legal
>> behavior, such as tobacco, alcohol etc.
>>
>
> The great harm of marijuana and cocaine comes from enforcing laws against
> them - ruining people's lives by trials and prison, funding gangs and
> smuggling.  I expect they are harmful to some people as is alcohol, but
> that's small relative to the social cost of law enforcement.
>
> Brent
>
>
>> Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting
>> for anyone wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different
>> drugs in comparison.
>>
>> I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report,
>> while other studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people think.
>>
>> m
>>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
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...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.