Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing
Bruno: you wrote: *The US constitution is very good, but is not really followed, and things like prohibition have put bandits into power, who have broken the important separation of powers.* *Lobbying and the role of money in politics should be revised. But we are a bit out of topic here, I think.* * * Out of topic of everything? OK, OK, I know. But the US Constitution (IMO) HAS BEEN very good in a 300+ year old societal view - drawn by duelling, pipe-smoking, hunting male chauvinist slave-owner despots to organize the 'colonies' NOT TO PAY taxes to the King of England. Now, the Supreme Court's oldies (probably younger than me) valuate the 18th c. language for the 21st c. life in a many times skewed sense. *Lobbying *I call buying votes for a special interest, *money* is not talk and *corporation* is not a 'person' (as e.g. a citizen). And so on. JM On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Oct 2013, at 18:08, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, often just to get enough funding to survive. Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem. Wait, this is indeed the most fundamental question! *How knowledge interact with money and power in society and convert itself in beliefs as a system that prevent further knowledge must be an integral part of research. * * * *For me this meta-knowledge about knowledge faith and power is a more fundamental question than knowledge itself.* --- I think that people don' t want knowledge primarily. Ha Ha ... That reminds me when my father told me that truth is what humans fear the most and like the less. What they aim at, is like any living being, and in fact, like any stable dynamic auto-regulated structure, is * to reduce uncertainty*. The humans oscillate between security/certainty/control and freedom/uncertainty/universality. Basically that is why we vote, to have a sort of equilibrium in between. That fit with many considerations at different levels, and embrace conclussions of evolution, game theory, computability, social science psychology and entropy. That explain how knowledge interact with power (and money and you wish) and faith. As I will explain: To reduce uncertainty can be achieved adquiring pure knowledge of the world around in order to predict better the future. But it can also be achieved by adquiring for themselves money or power, or love from other people, or commitment from tem, or respect, or common commintment to something or someone. The fact is that pure knowledge is not enoug. Money is not enough, power is not enough, since neither of them work without a committed society that make use of this knowledge in an organized way, that respect the money value and other properties, that has fair mechanism for adquiring power and legitimacy, and more that that, a society with a clear plan for our sibiling and generations to come. Thinking materialistically (I´m not but for a matter of argument) there is no social vehicle for our genes if the society have all these requirements, and, more important, no people that had not these requirements ullfilled survived, so we have inherited this natural seeking for all these kinds of uncertainty reduction mechanism around us. Some societies make enphasis in one kind of uncertainty reduction. Others rely more in other different in this equation. These different uncertainty reduction alternatives are one against the other. A strict hiearchi of power and legitimacy based on an enforced supernatural plan is a excellent uncertainty reduction for a stable society that does not need to change. In the other side, adquring knowledge is good, but that may challenge the structure, questionin legitimacies and creating civil wars, that can be pacific or violent. When there is no common plans nor loyaltyes, the pacific disputes become violent almos by defintion. A lot of philosophy on all their branches can be extracted from this starting point. The US constitution is very good, but is not really followed, and things like prohibition have put bandits into power, who have broken the important separation of powers. Lobbying and the role of money in politics should be revised. But we are a bit out of topic here, I think. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To 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
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
M On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/7/2013 1:32 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy. Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no consequential resolution? Some people seem to have inexhaustible patience! It was in the past and in the meantime lots happened to 'M that probably did (not? or quite differently?) happen to 'Y' and you are not that youngster who went to school, no matter how identical you 'feel' to be. That argument (taking thousands times more on this list than it deserves) is false: it leaves out the CHANGING of the world we LIVE IN (considered usually as time???) So I try to stay in the reality where 'panta rhei'. ...and I am not identical to the guy I WAS. (Some accused people use such arguments as well in court, but that is another table.) Who wrote that? :-) Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To 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: And the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics goes to…
Not being prone to any Nobel prizes, I watch them pretty objectively. Alfred Nobel established it due to his biting conscience: he wanted to eliminate ALL wars by inventing (and starting to manufacture) the stuff he deemed too aggressive to let people wage wars in his future: a wholesale production of nitro glycerin. He observed the failure: HIS stuff made WARS even more ferocious - so he dedicated his fortune (from nitro) to serve good humanitarian (v.lc. scientific) achievements. He honored the Swedish Royal Family with assigning the prizes - a body surely not on top of new science, but trustable in objectivity and choice of experts. I don't know much about the *Higgs boson*, according to some scientific gossip he tried to withdraw it - to no avail, it was already 'too big' to fall. I am also quite ignorant about the chemistry choice of the following day's decision: in *computerized chemistry* (3-way split) which started to unfold during the time of my retirement when I still 'believed' IN atoms and molecules. (Lately being washed away into agnosticism as explanatory figments of a Physical World level) The so called *Peace Prize* (maybe the No.1 as added to Nobel's original list) is tricky in a world of constant warring. This year's choice *(the UN-based - Organization to supervise the annihilation of Assad's chemical weapons*) - and not the Assad-regime *DOING* the annihilation is again a joke. It leaves out the AlQaeda and ilk (rebel?) parties holding a good part of such weaponry - mostly conquered earlier from the Syrian forces. And an agreeing remark to Bruno: IMO: not *Brout died early*: the Nobel Committee was late. Peoples should get celebrated even in 'posthumus' awards. John M On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Oct 2013, at 22:22, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2013 12:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2013, at 23:56, LizR wrote: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/10/08/and-the-2013-nobel-prize-in-physics-goes-to/ Today the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physicshttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/was awarded to François Englert (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium) and Peter W. Higgs (University of Edinburgh, UK). The official citation is “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.” I know him very well. I begun my work in his team, with Robert Brout. He asked me how to apply QM in cosmology, and I refer to the MWI. He added some footnote in one of his papers, just referring to Everett's original work, without any detail. He didn't like this, but somehow understood it is hard to make sense of quantum cosmology without it. I am happy that after 50 years he is recognized as one the main discover of the Higgs boson. I am happy for Higgs too. The seminal papers suggesting the higgs-field were written independently about the same time by Higgs, by Englert and Brout, and also by Kibble, Gaulnik, and Hagen. I've often thought the it came to called the higgs boson just because it's a lot easier to say higgs than englert-brout or kibble-gaulnik-hagen. I understand that Peter Higgs is a very nice, modest man and is a little embarassed by having the particle named after him, although he did develop the idea a little more than the others and is certainly deserving. But in my view, even more deserving are the thousands of engineers, technicians, and physicists who designed and built the LHC and the ATLAS and CMS detectors. Surely the most amazing machine ever built. I agree. In a forum someone asked if the Nobel prize should not be given to those who made the LHC, and the answer was that they were too many ... I find unfair also that there is no post-mortem Nobel prize, as Robert Brout deserves it too, but then he died too early. Well, the mathematician's Field medal is worse, you have to be younger than 40! But all this is vanity. François Englert said that he was happy with the Nobel prize, but that he was still more happier from having done his fundamental research. Now, the Nobel prize itself has been obscured by Obama's peace prize, like if it was giving him the right to use drones to kill civilians, or to sign the NDAA ... Englert should have refuse it, perhaps, like Sartre in France or Perelman in Russia, ... I am not really serious, as it seems than the scientific Nobel prize is more seriously attributed. Fortunately. The Nobel Peace Prize has been wielded as a tool of political influence and has thereby become almost meaningless. Obama got it for being a little less bellicose that George Bush. ... before his term! (may be we are in a Gödel rotative universe, with time loops, in which case they could
Re: Note to Russell Standish
Bruno, I can't help it: I liked Richard's interjection. Arithmetics (even in your fundamental vision - I suppose) needs 'human logic' to propagate etc., no matter how the elements may be thought to pre-date humans. Does a stone, or the 'root' of a plant, a microbe, or a cloud follow (evolve? apply?) your math- equations? I mean: not in their 'existence', but AS MATH (observing numbers, i.e. arithmetix)? Did you mean that (by UD) did humans got generated into logically thinking creatures? Where in Nature would you detect (whole-sale) arithmetics? (Meaning: beyond the 1, a pair, ~many etc. generalities? Prime numbers??) That would make us UNIQUE - not just a level in Nature. (Children of God - the Creator?) JM On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 15:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work. ? We need only Löbian-Turing intelligence which exists as a consequence of elementary arithmetic. The theory is: identity logic + ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) Where do you see an assumption about humans? Well, a best know but equivalent (with respecto the Everything goal) theory is: classical logic + 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Again, where do you see an assumption about human. Human are used in UDA, of course, to explain comp to humans, but the result is that the theories above, although quite incomplete with respect to the arithmetical truth, are complete for the ontology needed to explain physics and consciousness. We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal numbers (in the sense of Post, Turing, Church, etc.) provides an excellent candidate, especially with comp, of course. So how did evolution happen before humans existed? The UD generates the human before evolution, but their statistical weight is probably not relevant. Eventually the UD has to emulate some very long histories and the humans get a deeper and deeper past. Bruno On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:39 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Russell, Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on Bruno's mathematical reductionism: 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like Einstein's principle As simple as possible, and no simpler. 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) process. 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and consequently inter-subjectivity. My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed your mind about any of these presuppositions? Yours forever in the multiverse, Dan -- 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.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
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Dear Telmo, in spite of my reluctance to spend time and energy on that nightmare of teleportation-related follies - (probably a result of too heavy dinners after which Q-physicists could not sleep/relax) - and with no intention to protect John Clark (a decent partner anyway) I may draw a thick line between the terms *generating a new term * and *experiencing change*in passing. In my agnosticism I visualize the 'World' in constant dynamic change, so *nothing stays the same*. What does not mean that 'instant by instant' (if we accept time as a reality-factor) everything becomes renewed Changed: yes. (=My disagreement also against 'loops' in general). Considering the changes: they may be 'essential' (as e.g. death, or at least extended to 'major' parts of our organization) - or just incidental/partial. The way I try to figure out changes? there is an infinite complexity exercising (affecting) our world (i.e. the model we constructed for our existence as of latest) providing the stuff to our reductionist thinking (That 'model' is *all* and we have to explain - fit everything into it). I arrived at this by Robert Rosen. So: I am not a *'different person'* from what I was a second ago, YET I feel identical to *THAT* person (maybe of decades ago) which underwent lots of changes - keeping the SELF-feeling (whatever that may be). It doesn't mean that I am identical to THAT person, who could run, exercise, worked successfully in his conventional-reductionist science, etc. etc. I just FEEL as the same person (though changed, what I realize). In a doubling from 'Helsinki' to 'Moscow' (joke) it is not likely that all those changes by the complexity-circumstances in Finnland would be duplicated by the changes in Russia, so the 'doubled' (clone???) changes into a different person. I leave it to the 'Everything' Friends to decide whether that person feels still like the other one. I wouldn't. Just musing. Respectfully John Mikes On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of information, I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes justified to give them different names. Ok, so you then also have to agree that John Clark 1 second ago is not identical to John Clark 2 seconds ago. But things would get a bit confusing if I started calling you Mary Sue now. Both you and external observers agree that you are still John Clark. Either you claim that teleportation is fundamentally different from time passing in generating new John Clarks, or you don't. Which one is it? I suspect you think they are the same, but I also predict an attempt to avoid answering the question directly, possibly combined with comparing me to a baboon with below-average IQ and early onset dementia. then you agree with the first person indeterminacy. I agree that life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to see next. Forrest Gump had that figured out a long time ago. As far as personal identity or consciousness or a continuous feeling of self is concerned it it totally irrelevant if that prediction, or any other prediction for that matter, is confirmed or refuted, nor does it matter if the prediction was probabilistic or absolute. ? (as far as I can make sense of this sentence, it looks like it makes my point) I'm very glad to hear that. But what was your point? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at 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
Re: The I Concept, Analytically
Right on, Brent! ***Emergence is a description of how we think about our models of the world - not something in the world. So Bruno has a theory in which some parts are true but incommunicable. He identifies these with qualia because that is (supposedly) a characteristic of qualia. That's actually how all scientific theories work: you hypothesize a model, including connections to observations and see if it has explanatory and predictive power. * Brent you just explained (in 'other' = no certain - words) agnosticism, built into 'science'. Exempting the so called qualia, the feelings, and things 'comp' - or other scientific theory cannot handle. (Incommunicable??) I am suspicious of the* 'predictive' *power: it may be built in when the theory has been formulated. Then - low and behold - it is there. * Explanatory*, however, is reductionism using the state of our knowledge-base as of yesterday in conventional sciences (human(?) logic?) One more thing: in my vocabulary emergence is used for things of which we have no explanation how they 'occurred' - as long as we learn the details of such 'mystery' when it becomes PROCESS. HOW WE THINK is very personal. Respectfully John Mikes On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/12/2013 12:49 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Yes, but you see, even the food we get from the restaurant, is delicious. Why would it be delicious, assuming COMP. How could the primary modalities of things be good or bad assuming COMP? I know most people here think Craig is a hand waver, but I honestly cannot understand how qualia emerge from quantia, including their(meaning, my experiences) magically emerge from the many quants that Bruno's idea seems to require. Emergence is a description of how we think about our models of the world - not something in the world. So Bruno has a theory in which some parts are true but incommunicable. He identifies these with qualia because that is (supposedly) a characteristic of qualia. That's actually how all scientific theories work: you hypothesize a model, including connections to observations and see if it has explanatory and predictive power. Brent On Saturday, October 12, 2013 1:00:38 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/11/2013 9:44 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Sometimes, Bruno, I get the feeling as though you are a chef at a restaurant with a wonderful menu, but whenever anyone orders an item on it, all you can do is give them exactly the same picture of the item they ordered from the menu, but never the real thing!!! By the way, I do think your restaurant in terms of philosophical and intellectual satisfaction is one of the best in town! Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a 30,000 page menu and no food. --- Robert Pirsig 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6742 - Release Date: 10/11/13 -- 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 gives philosophers a bad name?
Telmo, entering sci-fi makes the discussion irrelevant. what if... can e anything I want to show (I almost wrote: prove). I am also against 'thought experiments' - designed to PROVE things unreal (=not experienced in real life) - like e.g. the EPR etc., involving 'unfacts'. By long back-and-forth people get used to the fantasy-world and THINK it is true. Devise constants from 'real life' and 'math' (imaginary, but formalized as real). Then someone gets a Nobel prize on it. I rather stay a confessed gnostic. John M On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Dear John, in spite of my reluctance to spend time and energy on that nightmare of teleportation-related follies - (probably a result of too heavy dinners after which Q-physicists could not sleep/relax) - and with no intention to protect John Clark (a decent partner anyway) I may draw a thick line between the terms generating a new term and experiencing change in passing. In my agnosticism I visualize the 'World' in constant dynamic change, so nothing stays the same. What does not mean that 'instant by instant' (if we accept time as a reality-factor) everything becomes renewed Changed: yes. (=My disagreement also against 'loops' in general). Considering the changes: they may be 'essential' (as e.g. death, or at least extended to 'major' parts of our organization) - or just incidental/partial. The way I try to figure out changes? there is an infinite complexity exercising (affecting) our world (i.e. the model we constructed for our existence as of latest) providing the stuff to our reductionist thinking (That 'model' is all and we have to explain - fit everything into it). I arrived at this by Robert Rosen. So: I am not a 'different person' from what I was a second ago, YET I feel identical to THAT person (maybe of decades ago) which underwent lots of changes - keeping the SELF-feeling (whatever that may be). It doesn't mean that I am identical to THAT person, who could run, exercise, worked successfully in his conventional-reductionist science, etc. etc. I just FEEL as the same person (though changed, what I realize). I understand your reluctance. My intuition is that the fact that rational discussion around things like teleportation turn into such a nightmare is precisely a sign that there is something very fundamental that we are not grasping. Sci-fi duplicators are nice because they confront us with situations where our normal model of I breaks. Of course maybe these duplicators are impossible, but they are a nice shortcut to other possible physical situations that result in the same type of problems. I suspect that trusting too much the feeling of being the same person is problematic. Imagining another sci-fi device that could write all of my personal memories into your brain (and that would come with my sincere apologies): I suspect you would then feel that you are me. Memories are just more perceptions, but what perceives? In a doubling from 'Helsinki' to 'Moscow' (joke) it is not likely that all those changes by the complexity-circumstances in Finnland would be duplicated by the changes in Russia, so the 'doubled' (clone???) changes into a different person. I leave it to the 'Everything' Friends to decide whether that person feels still like the other one. I wouldn't. What if you were duplicated inside an isolation tank? You could enter the tank in Helsinki, wait a bit, open the lid and be in Moscow. It would certainly feel strange but do you really think you would feel you have been transformed into someone else? All the best, Telmo. Just musing. Respectfully John Mikes On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of information, I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes justified to give them different names. Ok, so you then also have to agree that John Clark 1 second ago is not identical to John Clark 2 seconds ago. But things would get a bit confusing if I started calling you Mary Sue now. Both you and external observers agree that you are still John Clark. Either you claim that teleportation is fundamentally different from time passing in generating new John Clarks, or you don't. Which one is it? I suspect you think they are the same, but I also predict an attempt to avoid answering the question directly, possibly combined with comparing me to a baboon with below-average IQ and early onset dementia. then you agree with the first person indeterminacy. I agree that life
Re: Trailing Dovetailer Argument
Craig: beutiful. I saved it for my closer understanding (if...). One little intrusion though: *you write: the first copy of something should not be different from the 15,347,498th copy (figure arbitrary)*. My 'agnosticism' objects: The first copy is restricted to the techniques applicable for copting, not necessarily including the 'totality' of the original (infinite complexity). The later copies copy the first one. Meaning: we CANNOT copy in toto, only in our human cpabilities. (I extend such restriction to *'analytical'* - restricted to KNOWN parts, to *'statistical'* dependent on the border-limits and the qualia we include in identifying the counted items, to *'probability' *and some more.) John Mikes On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: A first draft that I posted over the weekend. * * *I. Trailing Dovetail Argument (TDA)* *A. Computationalism makes two ontological assumptions which have not been properly challenged:* - *The universality of recursive cardinality* - *Complexity driven novelty*. Both of these, I intend to show, are intrinsically related to consciousness in a non-obvious way. *B. Universal Recursive Cardinality* Mathematics, I suggest is defined by the assumption of universal cardinality: The universe is reducible to a multiplicity of discretely quantifiable units. The origin of cardinality, I suggest, is the partitioning or multiplication of a single, original unit, so that every subsequent unit is a recursive copy of the original. Because recursiveness is assumed to be fundamental through math, the idea of a new ‘one’ is impossible. Every instance of one is a recurrence of the identical and self-same ‘one’, or an inevitable permutation derived from it. By overlooking the possibility of absolute uniqueness, computationalism must conceive of all events as local reproductions of stereotypes from a Platonic template rather than ‘true originals’. A ‘true original’ is that which has no possible precedent. The number one would be a true original, but then all other integers represent multiple copies of one. All rational numbers represent partial copies of one. All prime numbers are still divisible by one, so not truly “prime”, but pseudo-prime in comparison to one. One, by contrast, is prime, relative to mathematics, but no number can be a true original since it is divisible and repeatable and therefore non-unique. A true original must be indivisible and unrepeatable, like an experience, or a person. Even an experience which is part of an experiential chain that is highly repetitive is, on some level unique in the history of the universe, unlike a mathematical expression such as 5 x 4 = 20, which is never any different than 5 x 4 = 20, regardless of the context. I think that when we assert a universe of recursive recombinations that know no true originality, we should not disregard the fact that this strongly contradicts our intuitions about the proprietary nature of identity. A generic universe would seem to counterfactually predict a very low interest in qualities such as individuality and originality, and identification with trivial personal preferences. Of course, what we see the precise opposite, as all celebrity it propelled by some suggestion unrepeatability and the fine tuning of lifestyle choices is arguably the most prolific and successful feature of consumerism. If the experienced universe were strictly an outcropping of a machine that by definition can create only trivially ‘new’ combinations of copies, why would those kinds of quantitatively recombined differences such as that between 456098209093457976534 and 45609420909345797353 seem insignificant to us, but the difference between a belt worn by Elvis and a copy of that belt to be demonstrably significant to many people? *C. Complexity Driven Novelty* Because computationalism assumes *finite* simplicity, that is, it provides only a pseudo-uniqueness by virtue of the relatively low statistical probability of large numbers overlapping each other precisely. There is no irreducible originality to the original Mona Lisa, only the vastness of the physical painting’s microstructure prevents it from being exactly reproduced very easily. Such a perfect reproduction, under computationalism is indistinguishable from the original and therefore neither can be more original than the other (or if there are unavoidable differences due to uncertainty and incompleteness, they would be noise differences which we would be of no consequence). *This is where information theory departs from realism, since reality provides memories and evidence of which Mona Lisa is new and which one was painted by Leonardo da Vinci at the beginning of the 16th century in Florence, Italy, Earth, Sol, Milky Way Galaxy*.* Mathematics can be said to allow for the possibility of novelty only in one direction; that of higher complexity. New
Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain
Bruno: what is a person? (according to the US Supreme Court lately: a Corporation, but I don't buy that) How can a Turing Machine EMULATE something different from it? (I know very little about the T.M.: is it infinite?) You wrote: ...*we (our souls) are in touch with the infinite...* Is a person different from 'it's' SOUL? How can WE (and who is that?) be in touch with the infinite? Are WE infinite? is our SOUL finite? I never met Mr Soul so far. IMO Descartes invented it for his duality to escape from the threat of the inquisition. (Spinoza was luckier: he did not have to go that far, he was only 'shunned' by his Jewish brethren.) Is it wrong to try to KNOW (understand maybe) what we are talking about? John Mikes On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:34:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 18 October 2013 12:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain brain processes, and the getting in the car and driving to the store, B, is associated with different brain processes. The brain processes associated with A *cause* the brain processes associated with B. That is to say, a scientist anywhere in the universe could observe the physical processes A and the physical processes B and see how the former lead to the latter without necessarily having any idea about the supervenient consciousness. Ok, I can work with this. First let me say that, given your assumptions, your reasoning is absolutely correct. The assumptions themselves, although I don't think they are even conscious, are also completely reasonable. That is a perfectly reasonable expectation about nature, and it is one that I myself shared until fairly recently. Starting with the first assumption: The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain brain processes To that I say, lets slow down a moment. What do we know about about the association? As far as I know, what we know is that 1) measurable changes in brain activity occur in synchronization to self-reported or experimentally inferred changes in subjective states. 2) the regions of the brain affected have been mapped with a high degree of consistency and specificity (although the anomalies, such as with people who live seemingly normal lives with large parts of their brain 'missing' makes that kind of morphological approach potentially naive) 3) that externally induced brain changes will induce changes in subjective experience (so that brain changes cannot be epiphenomenal). What we do not know is that 4) the entirety of our experiences are literally contained within the tissues of the brain, or its activities. 5) that the brain activity which we can observe with our contemporary instruments is the only causal agent of subjective experience. OK up to here. 6) that subjective experiences cannot cause observable brain changes (to the contrary, we count on subjects being able to voluntarily and spontaneously change their own brain activity). We don't know this for sure, but it goes against every scientific observation. If a subjective experience is supervenient on the underlying physical process then the observable brain changes can all be attributed to this underlying physical process. The subjective experience cannot be supervenient on the underlying physical process *only*. It can only be supervenient with some abstract type that the underlying physical process can incarnate locally. This made eventually the underlying process itself supervenient on infinities of computations (or perhaps more general abstract processes in case comp is false). If comp is false, then it might not be general abstract processes, but the opposite: proprietary diffractions of a single concrete pre-longing (sense, experience). A pro-cess is a going forward, or discarding of the past, but what I suggests prefigures spacetime entirely. There is no underlying process, there is a fundamental eternal now/here from which all 'theres' and 'thens' appear in contradistinction. Like a subroutine or a circuit, it is the fundamental pull to return to the higher level which allows coherence to the function. Functions which do not return data to the originating inquiry, or representations which fail to ground themselves in aesthetic presentations, are, like a computer with no i/o ports, completely useless. Interpreting your term very favorably, the ideally correct machine might relate. Of course we can see only one process, as we cannot feel the differentiation of the computations supporting us. Neither can computations feel us. Sure. Computations are not of the same type as person. A computation cannot no more
Re: And the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics goes to…
John, thanks for the info, useful, because not having ever run the danger of being assaulted by a Nobel Prize, I did not study their in depth history. HOWEVER: in my sentence I meant: the FIRST ONE when he made up his original listing (in the ORIGINAL list), not *later on added* 'as first addition' TO the original listing. On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: The so called *Peace Prize* (maybe the No.1 as added to Nobel's original list) The Peace Prizewas in Nobel's will to be given to those who have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, its the Economics Prize that was added much later. The reputations of many of the Peace and Literature Prizes have not stood the test of time very well, but the science prizes have done much better, although there have been some silly choices, like the 1912 physics prize to Gustaf Dalén for improving a lighthouse, and some glaring omissions, like snubbing Edwin Hubble and nobody getting a prize for the polio vaccine. And there should have been a mathematics Prize. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at 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: AUDA and pronouns
Bruno wrote *Not when doing science. (pseudo-science and pseudo-religion only).* * * Science as applied to the so far learned fraction of the infinite complexity? If there ever was a 'pseudo-science' - that is one (I mean the conventional pretension used for those ALMOST perfect technicalities Brent was mentioning to me.) Our 'model' (science?) is constantly growing. So: NEWER arguments are emerging and older ones are rejected. I appreciate your parallel between science and religion. Our world is a fractional model so far cleared to the capabilities of the human mentality. Are you thinking of SCIENCE (all caps) of the infinite Universal M., not reachable presently for us weak-minded humans? *You still need some notion of possible truth, without which 'agnosticism lost his meaning. This can lead to instrumentalism.* *** *You will need a theory with more forms of absolute to develop the idea that 17 is prime is a human logic relative idea.* * * Agnosticism - for me - is not a philosophical theorem: it is just marking our ignorance about 'all of it' except for the few we already GOT and adjusted to the meek capabilities of the developing human mind. I am also at a loss how I would driven towards 'instrumentalism'. In my (virgin?) agnosticism I even leave open what kind of content could be - and HOW - intertwined in the (unknowable) infinite complexity, which has SOME influence upon - how we visualize at all our 'model-world content'. Absolutes are scientific/religious belief items we try to hold on to. Possible truth is our figment. About 17? I am no mathematician, so a fantasy of math-systems is free to me. I figure a dynamic number-world flipping between series of its own integers, like the base of 'your' arithmetic and another one like expressable as 1.7, 3.4, 5.1... in which 17 is a tenfold of the first one, not a prime. This would be with all the 'primes' in our primitive number-world. Flip-flop. (Just musing!) Not so incredible for an Infinite Universal Machine. (I have imagination). As for now I am not (yet?) asking for a patent on this system. Have a good Halloween John Mikes On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Oct 2013, at 21:03, John Mikes wrote: Brent: I like to write insted of we know - we THINK we know and it goes further: Bruno's provable' - in many cases - applies evidences (to 'prove') from conventional science (reductionist figments) we still THINK we know. Not when doing science. (pseudo-science and pseudo-religion only). I don't think I use the term T R U E at all - in my agnosticism. You still need some notion of possible truth, without which 'agnosticism lost his meaning. This can lead to instrumentalism. You had a remark lately to remind me that our 'imperfect' worldview resulted in many many practical achievements so far. I did not respond the missing adjective almost - meaning the many failures and mishaps such achievements are involved with. We approach the practical usability. Another chapter includes math - the *result* of certain HUMAN logic - in which 17 is defined as a 'prime'. A different logic may devise a different math with different number-concept in which the equivalent of 17 is NOT a prime. You will need a theory with more forms of absolute to develop the idea that 17 is prime is a human logic relative idea. Bruno I find it a mathematically impressed concept that the 'world' is describable by numbers (arithmetic series) and not vice versa. Nobody showed me so far a natural occurrence where arithmetic connotations were detectable by non-arithmetic trains of thought. JohnM On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/19/2013 3:08 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:17:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2013, at 11:51, Russell Standish wrote: I understand Bp can be read as I can prove p, and Bpp as I know p. But in the case, the difference between Bp and Bpp is entirely in the verb, the pronoun I stays the same, AFAICT. Correct. Only the perspective change. Bp is Toto proves p, said by Toto. Bp p is Toto proves p and p is true, as said by Toto (or not), and the math shows that this behaves like a knowledge opertaor (but not arithmetical predicate). It's the same Toto in both cases... What's the point? The difference is crucial. Bp obeys to the logic G, which does not define a knower as we don't have Bp - p. At best, it defines a rational believer, or science. Not knowledge. But differentiating W from M, is knowledge, even non communicable knowledge. You can't explain to another, that you are the one in Washington, as for the other, you are also in Moscow. Knowledge logic invite us to define the first person by the knower. He is the only one who can know that his pain is not fake, for example. You've hinted at fixed points being relevant here for the concept of I. So to have an 'I
Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie
Russell - and others: not that I would pretend to be an expert in genetical paleontology (or call it as you wish), but in my (obsolete: I studied college science 1940 - 1944) thinking I found it feasible that 'homo-like evolution could proceed from the Australopitecus as well as from the Orangutan type Red ape basis, not to exclude a similar Simianic origin from another part of Pangea (lately: America, even Polynesia) before they separated into recent continents. The evidence of that virus is conditional if it does not exclude infection later during higher steps of development. Say: the virus spread all over and infected the diverse types of developing 'homo'-s from simianic origins more than the ONE we assign today in our desultory justification with the African type. I could use more paleontological justification than conclusions from a jaw...(to be fascetious). Not only is the origination NOT restricted to the ONE A. Fragilis of Africa, a mixing - (ref: the 10% Neandertal - where did THEY originate from?) later on - is also feasible. I do not want to enter a discussion in a field where I am amiss of the foundations, just muse about my thinking in my agnostic mind. The official 'professionals' don't like lay ideas penetrate their privileged fields. John Mikes - (classic) polymer scientist - ret. (As a European immigrant in the US I said several time that I am an African American, the ancestors of whom emigrated from Africa and I came to the US after a 30,000 year delay in Europe). On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:28:19AM +1300, LizR wrote: I didn't realise there was still much doubt about this. I thought studying human DNA had made the out of Africa hypothesis fairly robust. (Obviously more confirming evidence will add another sigma, or whatever...) There is some evidence of interbreeding between the H. sapiens that migrated from Africa, and the indigenous Neanderthal and Denisovan species. IIRC, the indigineous species contributed something like 10% of the genetic code to the humans from those areas - N to Europeans, and D to some island populations off Asia. So its not quite Out of Africa exlusively, more like mostly Out of Africa, with a small dash of Multiregionalism. But its fascinating what we've learnt just in the last decade. When my son asked me (for a science assignment) to name a significant scientific technology, I immediately said PCR! 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: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie
I read in Elain Morgan's (Oxford UK) Aquatic Ape book an enjoyable comparison between human characteristic and those of pigs. It is not about hybridization at all. Enjoyable reading stuff. (The book is quite different from th recent denigration of the 'topic' into the mermaids and creationist aberrations). JM On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Where do pigs come in? :) On 23 October 2013 12:24, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes... and some very interesting stuff too... It's also interesting also how widespread the interbreeding between Neanderthal and Denisovan's appears to have been based on DNA Interestingly there now appears to have been at least two separate hominid species -- including Homo floresiensis i.e. the Hobbits -- that in addition to the Neanderthal in Europe primarily -- have left a genetic trail in the heritage of the peoples now living in Micronesia and amongst aboriginal Australian populations. This is more clear in the case of the Denisovan's and Neanderthal and we can only speculate whether it also occurred between homo sapiens and homo floresiensis, but I somehow suspect it happened. As we become more astute in reading DNA and understanding the larger sequences that exist in them and their lineages I suspect we will be finding other interesting lineages mixed in to our code... and that we are a hybridized species. But then is this not the way of nature :) Comparing genomes, scientists concluded that today's humans outside Africa carry an average of 2.5 percent Neanderthal DNA, and that people from parts of Oceania also carry about 5 percent Denisovan DNA. A study published in November found that Southeast Asians carry about 1 percent Denisovan DNA in addition to their Neanderthal genes. It is unclear whether Denisovans and Neanderthals also interbred. [Other studies seem to indicate that they did] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research -into-human-origins.html?pagewanted=all_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-human-origins.html?pagewanted=all_r=0 -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:33 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:28:19AM +1300, LizR wrote: I didn't realise there was still much doubt about this. I thought studying human DNA had made the out of Africa hypothesis fairly robust. (Obviously more confirming evidence will add another sigma, or whatever...) There is some evidence of interbreeding between the H. sapiens that migrated from Africa, and the indigenous Neanderthal and Denisovan species. IIRC, the indigineous species contributed something like 10% of the genetic code to the humans from those areas - N to Europeans, and D to some island populations off Asia. So its not quite Out of Africa exlusively, more like mostly Out of Africa, with a small dash of Multiregionalism. But its fascinating what we've learnt just in the last decade. When my son asked me (for a science assignment) to name a significant scientific technology, I immediately said PCR! 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. -- 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
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
Craig and Telmo: Is anticipation involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or rejecting). What else is in thinking involved? I would like to know, because I have no idea. John Mikes On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/**magazine/archive/2013/11/the-** man-who-would-teach-machines-**to-think/309529/http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/ The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think ...Take Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that bested the chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. Deep Blue won by brute force. For each legal move it could make at a given point in the game, it would consider its opponent’s responses, its own responses to those responses, and so on for six or more steps down the line. With a fast evaluation function, it would calculate a score for each possible position, and then make the move that led to the best score. What allowed Deep Blue to beat the world’s best humans was raw computational power. It could evaluate up to 330 million positions a second, while Kasparov could evaluate only a few dozen before having to make a decision. Hofstadter wanted to ask: Why conquer a task if there’s no insight to be had from the victory? “Okay,” he says, “Deep Blue plays very good chess—so what? Does that tell you something about how we play chess? No. Does it tell you about how Kasparov envisions, understands a chessboard?” A brand of AI that didn’t try to answer such questions—however impressive it might have been—was, in Hofstadter’s mind, a diversion. He distanced himself from the field almost as soon as he became a part of it. “To me, as a fledgling AI person,” he says, “it was self-evident that I did not want to get involved in that trickery. It was obvious: I don’t want to be involved in passing off some fancy program’s behavior for intelligence when I know that it has nothing to do with intelligence. And I don’t know why more people aren’t that way...” I was just reading this too. I agree. This is precisely my argument against John Clark's position. Another quote I will be stealing: Airplanes don’t flap their wings; why should computers think? I think the intended meaning is closer to: airplanes don't fly by flapping their wings, why should computers be intelligent by thinking?. It depends whether you want 'thinking' to imply awareness or not. I think the point is that we should not assume that computation is in any way 'thinking' (or intelligence for that matter). I think that 'thinking' is not passive enough to describe computation. It is to say that a net is 'fishing'. Computation is many nets within nets, devoid of intention or perspective. It does the opposite of thinking, it is a method for petrifying the measurable residue or reflection of thought. -- 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-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
Allegedly Stathis wrote: *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes.* I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently known/knowable. Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics? I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. Agnostically yours John Mikes On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step closer to answering this question. Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our consciousness. Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in a 'motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that specifically processes visual motionhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/. The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer. So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no effect. This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between conscious and unconscious motion representation in the brainhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/. Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the question of how this neural stability is achieved. Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???* If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes. -- 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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a PHYSICAL World. It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind (consciousness???) On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Allegedly Stathis wrote: *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes.* I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently known/knowable. Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics? I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. Agnostically yours John Mikes It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, but with any physics. -- 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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
Bruno, Craig and Learned discussion partners: it is hard even to read-in into the endless back-and-forth you exude. At least for me - pretending that I still retain may subjectivity (don't misunderstand: I deny anything 'objective' if not adjusted by our own sub). We are not capable of even following the infinite complexity of which we got little morsels to chew on. Now I have a question: What would you call *- S E N S E -* ? Craig: *the Absolute*. We cannot know anything 'absolute', only a humanly adjusted shadow of it. Bruno states that the *arithmetic* 'truth' *can* (or rather *could?*) express the absolute - but never showed - even tried how to DO IT. Not even hinted to a method HOW to attempt it. ( Comp? or using many-many numbers???) *In your brain*??? WHO is there pretending to be the SELF (I) ? whatever is in our brain (matter, physiological energy, motion and connectivity) has been accounted for in reductionist sciences - no *'sense'* sowed up. If we detect 'something like that', it is self-referential* thinking* and changes from era to era (maybe only in days). No 1st person. We just think of it. And *feel so*. And: talk about it. So: what are we talking about? John M On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict such deterministic law. That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into sense: Laws, Forces, Fields, Wavefunctions, Probability...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re- constellation. Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me. Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the- gap, etc. No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the introspective machine. Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed), You might be dreaming. but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that appear out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence. It's just haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be precisely mapped and deconstructed mathematically does not give it the power to change matter. What has been overlooked is the possibility that matter is an appearance within experience, of experience which has alienated itself - followed different histories in parallel or phase-shift. I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be anything more or less than sense. This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable feature like consciousness, etc. There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full stop. Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if only because it escapes definition. So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p. It is an important data, and its immediacy and obviousness is certainly a clue. Then, if you do the math, you can intellectually understand why machines looking inward describes something which looks very much like that. All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory context. You bet. It is OK. There is nothing there to be evident except for this relativity of presence shared with the contents and contexts of eternity. Justification is nothing but a sense of comparison among subordinate sense experience. You are looking for something that you have already found but won't accept it. I found it in my head, and I show that all universal machine looking in their head can find something quite similar. You are just insulting the machine, by what looks like prejudice, as you admit not trying to study them. I am showing you *all of this* is sense, and you are responding that you
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
liz wrote (Oct. 24) to Craig: *What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are inorganic), what are organic atoms?* * * What are 'atoms'? (IMO models of our ignorance (oops: knowledge) about a portion of the unknowable infinite explained during the latest some centuries of human development 'science'. JM On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have no reason to believe that they were assembled by anything other than themselves. The fact that we are made of atoms and atoms are made from stars is another point in their favor, whereas no living organism that we have encountered is made of inorganic atoms, or of pure mathematics, or can survive by consuming only inorganic atoms or mathematics. What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are inorganic), what are organic atoms? -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
My idea (as I voiced it several times) the 'oldies' of the Supremes should be retired after - say - 20 years of being separated from the real world in the* Ivory Tower of the Hi Court.* Nobody can maintain an active understanding of the problems *OF OTHERS* after such period of just looking D O W N on problems of them. John Mikes On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, and yet we get the following exchange between Jennifer Senior of New York Magazine and Scalia that happened just 2 weeks ago but could have come straight out of the middle ages and vividly illustrated what Carl Sagan called The Demon-Haunted World”. Incidentally Scalia has said that he disagrees with the idea that religious belief is a private matter that can be put in a airtight box and has no effect on public life. Senior: You believe in heaven and hell? Scalia: Oh, of course I do. Don’t you believe in heaven and hell? Senior: No. Scalia: Oh, my. Senior: Does that mean I’m not going? Scalia: [Laughing.] Unfortunately not! Senior: Wait, to heaven or hell? Scalia: It doesn’t mean you’re not going to hell, just because you don’t believe in it. That’s Catholic doctrine! Everyone is going one place or the other. Senior: But you don’t have to be a Catholic to get into heaven? Or believe in it? Scalia: Of course not! Senior: Oh. So you don’t know where I’m going. Thank God. Scalia: I don’t know where you’re going. I don’t even know whether Judas Iscariot is in hell. I mean, that’s what the pope meant when he said, ‘Who am I to judge?’ He may have recanted and had severe penance just before he died. Who knows? Senior: Can we talk about your drafting process – Scalia: [Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the devil. Senior: You do? Scalia: Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that. Senior: Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there … Scalia: If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it. Senior: Have you seen evidence of the devil lately? Scalia: You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore. Senior: No. Scalia: It’s because he’s smart. Senior: So what’s he doing now? Scalia: What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way. Senior: That has really painful implications for atheists. Are you sure that’s the – devil’s work? Scalia: I didn’t say atheists are the devil’s work. Senior: Well, you’re saying the devil is persuading people to not believe in God. Couldn’t there be other reasons to not believe? Scalia: Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament. Senior: Right. Scalia: What happened to him? Senior: He just got wilier. Scalia: He got wilier. Senior: Isn’t it terribly frightening to believe in the devil? Scalia: You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil. Senior: I hope you weren’t sensing contempt from me. It wasn’t your belief that surprised me so much as how boldly you expressed it. Scalia: I was offended by that. I really was. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at 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
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
As far as I - as a newspaper-reading stiff - know - it was Mitt Romney, not exactly as it was implemented - asked for by the dying late Sen. Ed. Kennedy at his last visit to Congress. Obama only kept the basic (capitalist?) format to let insurers and other investors (and lawyers) reap profit on this (allegedly?) ONE PAYER system riding on tax money. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: *What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ? * No matter what your age, most people will find Obamacare way too expensive. But there's no penalty for a pre-existing illness. So most people are going to dodge the bullet, take the penalty, and just wait until they get sick. That changes the statistics a great deal, as most people, not just young healthy people as hoped, will similarly dodge the bullet. But presumably all of those penalties will not support Obamacare by a long shot. So I don't see how Obamacare can possibly work. This is not rocket science. What kind of morons designed it ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: shouldn't biology get a reboot?
Chris - Liz - Bruno Nov.6: * Are we organisms; or ecosystems? * Who cares? those are WORDS without proper meaning. OF COURSE WE ARE complexities (without knowing what they are indeed) and we follow the partial list of information we so far received. Try to figure it as nations (countries?) in the UN with diverse goals and capabilities, interests and tasks etc. All behave in unison, - seemingly - but every one according to a special role. Our diversity is much greater and we really know very very little about it. That is our biology. Some add to it the 'constitution' (consciousness?) and call something a MInd. Our potential comparison is weak. We are impressed by the temporary explanations - conventional science finds for phenomena that appears to show up. Figments. The only thing we know for sure is that we do not know the vast body of the 'rest'. We learn daily and have no clue WHAT and HOW MUCH there is to come later on (if we indeed CAN get it all). On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 07:14, Chris de Morsella wrote: A human has something like ten times as many bacteria in its body than it does cells with human DNA. Pretty much all life forms are in fact complex multi-species ecosystems that by and large have evolved to work together in ways we hardly understand. To give some perspective I’ve read there are something like fifty species of microorganisms that specialize just on the highly specialized niche of living on human tooth enamel. That’s just our teeth! We haven’t even gotten to the gum lines (which are a veritable jungle thriving with microbial life) and the gut, which is microbial central. We are sieves and the world flows through our bodies; we are walking, talking ecosystems…. And so is every other living thing, that we can see. Even bacteria have bacteriophages. Even within a single cell; mitochondria carry their own DNA and it could be argued the modern cell is the fruit of an ancient union of previously different life forms in the distant origins of emergent life. Most cells organels are ancient bacteria, apparently. Some think that the nucleus might be an ancient virus. Are we organisms; or ecosystems? Our bodies are both, I would say. But we are not our bodies, we are our values, ideas, memories, etc. That runs through a complex colony of bacteria, microbes, and modern cells, which are quite plausibly the result of ancient bacteria and viruses associations. I think. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To 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: Computers, code and consciousness
Bruno wrote No.6: *You have missed the discovery of the universal machine. * Was it a discovery, or an invention? Is thereO N E *discovered* machine for studying, or we just imagine how it should behave? On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Computers, code and consciousness Cumputers cannot simulate human activities or experiences or consciousness because they have to deal in code. Code is not magic, have no inherent intelligence. Computers are not magic, they are just machines. Magic explains even less. Then, the closure of the computable functions for diagonalization introduces the magic of self-reference, in the different points of view. Computers can only deal in code, which is impersonal and public. They are noit experiences, but can be descruiptions of experiences, which is not the same thing. Unfortunately, experiences are personal and computers, dealing in code only, have no access to them. They have access to their own code, but they are confronted to Truth, also. They have the same difficulty than us to relate truth and code. Why must I keep explaining this ? You have missed the discovery of the universal machine. That changes everything. The universal machine have a rich theology. Computers deal in code. At some level. Humans too. Cf DNA. People don't At some level. Machines too (cf the machine's first person). If you need to introduce magic, it means you want escape reason, but this can only lead to bad faith, wishful thinking, etc. Computer science shows that there is enough magic in reason. No need to introduce it, as this addition might hide the magic which is there. Also, your way of reasoning is invalid? If human can use magic to be conscious, why not machine? You might be underestimating God's power. Bruno Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Computers, code and consciousness
Bruno, could you kindly tell me how could I find a universal machine? (No joke). I would LOVE to listen to them. John M On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 21:31, John Mikes wrote: Bruno wrote No.6: *You have missed the discovery of the universal machine. * Was it a discovery, or an invention? Is thereO N E *discovered*machine for studying, or we just imagine how it should behave? There are many universal machine, or universal number, but they are all equivalent (and maximal) in computability and emulability abilities. They are not equivalent in provability and inductive inference abilities, although the correct one will obeys to very general mathematical laws. In fact they all have the same (rich) theologies, and they are testable as the theology contains the physics. So it is fun to listen to them, and compare with what we can observe. Bruno On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Computers, code and consciousness Cumputers cannot simulate human activities or experiences or consciousness because they have to deal in code. Code is not magic, have no inherent intelligence. Computers are not magic, they are just machines. Magic explains even less. Then, the closure of the computable functions for diagonalization introduces the magic of self-reference, in the different points of view. Computers can only deal in code, which is impersonal and public. They are noit experiences, but can be descruiptions of experiences, which is not the same thing. Unfortunately, experiences are personal and computers, dealing in code only, have no access to them. They have access to their own code, but they are confronted to Truth, also. They have the same difficulty than us to relate truth and code. Why must I keep explaining this ? You have missed the discovery of the universal machine. That changes everything. The universal machine have a rich theology. Computers deal in code. At some level. Humans too. Cf DNA. People don't At some level. Machines too (cf the machine's first person). If you need to introduce magic, it means you want escape reason, but this can only lead to bad faith, wishful thinking, etc. Computer science shows that there is enough magic in reason. No need to introduce it, as this addition might hide the magic which is there. Also, your way of reasoning is invalid? If human can use magic to be conscious, why not machine? You might be underestimating God's power. Bruno Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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. 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
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. *I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly.*... Bruno, before I touch the basics - could you explain what you would consider to produce *M O R E money HONESTLY?* Same question to Brent's text above: *that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively*. I don't see a 'productive' way how 'the rich' get more wealth and power by using their wealth and power. It is exploitation, political scam, bribery, terrorism, etc. - all in the framework of accepted morals of the system (either capitalist, or fascist). I recall some basics (I am no 'Socialist') from Marx: NOBODY *owns *Nature so any natural products (mining, farming, or other) are valued 'honestly' as recompensation for the *efforts* invested into the natural process for getting money - honestly - productively, without exploitation. Does any mine-owner work on his product? Does any Farming conglomerated stockholder work honestly on the crop? I do not advocate the CEO to sweep the floor: there is tasks' - organization in which everyone has a role to perform, but are the roles proportionately paid for? Mao tried to switch 'roles' temporarily - he failed. Lenin realized that such just distribution is impossible in today's society and postulated FIRST the development of som COMMUINST MAN who lives up to such 'just distribution' of benefits - surely realizing the impossibility of such development. All other (Socialist?) countries suffered from the same malaise as the (democraticly?) capitalistic ones: the leadership and its power usurped wealth, acquired MONEY and POWER on the back of the 'not so fortunate' exploited majority. Alas, I have no solution to remedy the situation. Re-hire Dr. Guillotine is unrealistic. JM On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly. Once a few fake money (based on a lie) appears, it corrupts the whole system, and the society get pyramidal, with a higher gap between poor and rich, and eventually this crush down. We must think about a way to prevent that. Some state can play a role. But we have to get rid of the bandits first, and there is an easy way: legalize all drugs. Regulate them, and tax them proportionally by the real harm (that is measured by statistics no more confusing a - b and b - a) they do. May be that is not enough. Prohibitionists should be judged. We have to get spiritual or mature enough to understand that. The state must ensure the fairness of competition among products, their traceability, the presence of notice with the secondary effects, etc. But the state has nothing to say about what is good or
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
One more remark: the H O N E S T heirs? super-rich they may be? Do you find an honestly accumulated heirloom to inherit? Did they work productively/honestly to be 'rich'? JM On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. *I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly.*... Bruno, before I touch the basics - could you explain what you would consider to produce *M O R E money HONESTLY?* Same question to Brent's text above: *that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively*. I don't see a 'productive' way how 'the rich' get more wealth and power by using their wealth and power. It is exploitation, political scam, bribery, terrorism, etc. - all in the framework of accepted morals of the system (either capitalist, or fascist). I recall some basics (I am no 'Socialist') from Marx: NOBODY *owns *Nature so any natural products (mining, farming, or other) are valued 'honestly' as recompensation for the *efforts* invested into the natural process for getting money - honestly - productively, without exploitation. Does any mine-owner work on his product? Does any Farming conglomerated stockholder work honestly on the crop? I do not advocate the CEO to sweep the floor: there is tasks' - organization in which everyone has a role to perform, but are the roles proportionately paid for? Mao tried to switch 'roles' temporarily - he failed. Lenin realized that such just distribution is impossible in today's society and postulated FIRST the development of som COMMUINST MAN who lives up to such 'just distribution' of benefits - surely realizing the impossibility of such development. All other (Socialist?) countries suffered from the same malaise as the (democraticly?) capitalistic ones: the leadership and its power usurped wealth, acquired MONEY and POWER on the back of the 'not so fortunate' exploited majority. Alas, I have no solution to remedy the situation. Re-hire Dr. Guillotine is unrealistic. JM On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly. Once a few fake money (based on a lie) appears, it corrupts the whole system, and the society get pyramidal, with a higher gap between poor and rich, and eventually this crush down. We must think about a way to prevent that. Some state can play a role. But we have to get rid of the bandits first, and there is an easy way: legalize all drugs. Regulate them, and tax them proportionally by the real harm (that is measured by statistics no more confusing a - b and b - a) they do. May be that is not enough
Re: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
Liz: it all starts with the proper use of words we use so imroperly. What is P H Y S I C A L ? the explanational domain where features are proven by other featires of the explanational theoretical domain? (By instruments from WITHIN) What is M E N T A L ? we live in a maze and use 'language' to communicate. Look at ' M A T E R I A L ' at the final dissolution of the particles: no matter-like in them. Look at ' M E N T A L ' in the (conventional) scientific explanatory figments: you end up with PHYSICAL sites (in the brain) and PHYSICAL processes (electrical etc.) to explain. Another look-up comes from the changes of such figments over the millennia of our developmental process, how ALL of them transformed as we 'learned' more about the circumstances we know so little about. This is why my agnosticism is based on: The only thing we know is We Don't. The rest is 'science' etc. we keep talking about. Belief, doubt, Nobel Prizes, etc. (And maybe: Bruno's numbers? applied by his (Loeb's?) universal machine). John Mikes On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 04:11, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematical proof is all that is lacking. That is that particles like electrons and quarks are strings. That electrons and quarks have mass is established experimentally Well, they appear to, in the sense that they interact in certain ways. Does string theory and / or the higgs mechanism explain the equivalence of gravitational and intertial mass, by the way? -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Bruno and Brent: *Who are you to T E L L society what it needs?* (BTW: I agree perfectly with your position). I had discussions on other lists in aspects of religion and gun-control and received similar offensive repercussions. No universal machine can tell any other universal machine how to think and what to aim at. Voting is a lying hoax, democracy is nonetxistent. A handful people of goodwill will not change the malicious crowd. When I abhor shooting to kill people, it does not prove wrong those crazies who like to do it - just marks a difference of opinions. TELLING society what it needs is fascism, socialism, or religion. Be careful with your words: they are mostly meaningless substitutes. John M. On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. *I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly.*... Bruno, before I touch the basics - could you explain what you would consider to produce *M O R E money HONESTLY?* Same question to Brent's text above: *that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively*. I don't see a 'productive' way how 'the rich' get more wealth and power by using their wealth and power. It is exploitation, political scam, bribery, terrorism, etc. - all in the framework of accepted morals of the system (either capitalist, or fascist). I recall some basics (I am no 'Socialist') from Marx: NOBODY *owns *Nature so any natural products (mining, farming, or other) are valued 'honestly' as recompensation for the *efforts* invested into the natural process for getting money - honestly - productively, without exploitation. Does any mine-owner work on his product? Does any Farming conglomerated stockholder work honestly on the crop? I do not advocate the CEO to sweep the floor: there is tasks' - organization in which everyone has a role to perform, but are the roles proportionately paid for? Mao tried to switch 'roles' temporarily - he failed. Lenin realized that such just distribution is impossible in today's society and postulated FIRST the development of som COMMUINST MAN who lives up to such 'just distribution' of benefits - surely realizing the impossibility of such development. All other (Socialist?) countries suffered from the same malaise as the (democraticly?) capitalistic ones: the leadership and its power usurped wealth, acquired MONEY and POWER on the back of the 'not so fortunate' exploited majority. Alas, I have no solution to remedy the situation. Re-hire Dr. Guillotine is unrealistic. JM On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Brent wrote: What about telling society what it needs to survive? Are you telling me fascism, socialism, and religion are bad? (earlier): Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. The 3 belief systems I mentioned are bad - *IN MY OPINION.* This last remark is what I missed in your statement as well. Besides: I did not include the 3 systems' names as some qualifying statement: just referred to their activity as in intruding into peoples' private beliefs. John On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 1:06 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Brent: *Who are you to T E L L society what it needs?* (BTW: I agree perfectly with your position). I had discussions on other lists in aspects of religion and gun-control and received similar offensive repercussions. No universal machine can tell any other universal machine how to think and what to aim at. Voting is a lying hoax, democracy is nonetxistent. A handful people of goodwill will not change the malicious crowd. When I abhor shooting to kill people, it does not prove wrong those crazies who like to do it - just marks a difference of opinions. TELLING society what it needs is fascism, socialism, or religion. What about telling society what it needs to survive? Are you telling me fascism, socialism, and religion are bad? 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: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Liz wrote: (and I try to interject my remarks in plain lettering) *Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. * I would say: how WE explain the workings of the universe (- rather Multiverse). * Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. * Ditto *That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. * Laws are our deduction of the majority-observed phenomena.They do not regulate Nature: WE think they are Nature's laws. - So far... *All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. * Order? as we regulate our views (including those 'laws') *You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age...* Unless you dream... BTW LIKELY is not = Probability 1. The P-word reflects on our PRESENT (very incomplete) views and does not include a sequence (if it is not '1'). Just musing JM On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead). Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age! Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75? I don't know anything about Benjamin Button. Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? -- 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
Re: Global warming silliness
Dear LIZ: More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories beween 1599 and 2010. We call that 'religon'. (Numbers!!!) Does that make them true? Fossil fuel will not neccesarily run out: nobody will use them after our demise. And for nukes? I would say: O N L Y fusion! The 'old fashion' fission nuke may be even more danerous than fossil pollution. JM On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24 rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try and understand the world. We call it science. Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change we'd have to do *something*. I think nuclear is a good short term solution, for sure. Especially subcritical reactors. On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I would like to point out that I did not write the first two sentences you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one. Sorry. No worries. Telmo. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at 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. -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Telmo and other 'experts': why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) . JM On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:07 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:49 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2013 10:55, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: if you want us to give up the bad, dirty, power, then please provide a clean, affordable, abundant substitute. Faster, please. The Sun, of course. Produces millions of times more power than we need. Trouble is the fossil fuel industry doesn't want us to use it. Given the sort of effort ut into that that has been put into the space race or warfare we'd have this sorted by next week. I have no doubt that the fossil fuel industry will try to prevent this. I also agree that the effort put into wars is a horrible misuse of human potential and that great things could be achieved instead. Regarding solar power -- this could be the solution but it's sci-fi at the moment. It's intuitive to look at solar panels and imagine fossil fuels being replaced by this. It's less intuitive to visualise the scale of the problem and the limitations of current technology. We have a world population of about 7 billion now. It has doubled since I was born, in 1976. It continues to grow at more than 1% a year and this is an important part of the equation. Ultimately, the world's energy budget is mostly spent on providing basic necessities to all of these people. Food, heating, health care, schools and so on. I'm not arguing that the resources are correctly distributed, but I am arguing that this is what we mostly use the energy for. A lot of energy. The large chunk of it currently comes from oil, coal and natural gas. So the problems, according to my limited knowledge: current solar panels are based on silicon, which is a scarce resource. The amount of silicon available might not be enough for the total solar panel surface area that we would need to remove our dependency on fossil fuels. In fact, some people are suggesting that we already reached peak silicon. Another other issue is energy efficiency. Mining the raw materials and then transforming them into solar panels takes a certain energy budget. Then these panels last for some years. Then you have to build new ones. The more you remove fossil fuel from the equation, the more you have to rely on the solar panels energy to pay for the energy budget of the next generation. Notice that you also have to store a lot of energy because of seasonal effects, day an night and so on. This takes some sort of capacitor with its own energy budget. I don't think it's clear that all this could become self-sustainable with our current technology. Remember that we still have to provide for the 7 billion humans while paying these energy investments -- and I mean paying in terms of energy, doesn't matter if we're under cut-throat capitalism or a socialist utopia, this economic fact remains. In fact, defeating our dependency on fossil fuels and curbing our CO2 emissions are antagonistic goals. To bootstrap the great solar panel farm we need a lot of energy upfront. The faster you want to do it, the more of this energy has to come from fossil fuels. Then you have two options: increase CO2 emissions or use energy that you would normally use to keep the 7 billion people alive. The faster you do it and the more you rely on the second option, the more human suffering you will cause. We're mot talking about trivial inconveniences either, we're talking about millions and millions dying from starvation, cold and disease. It is tempting to assume that we can go back to a simpler lifestyle and make do with less, but this regards that the current carrying capacity was made possible by the energy budget provided by fossil fuels. Before the energy revolution there were orders of magnitude less human beings on earth, and the complexity of human society was much lower. Organising 7 billion people to live somewhat peacefully on a small planet is no trivial matter. You cannot disregard
Re: Nuclear power
Russell wrote: *For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including animpassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voicecompetition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in theroom of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuelpower plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burnthrough our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fissionreactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breedertechnology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium thatwould then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for roguestates to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happeningany time soon either.* Cheers I keep 'preaching' the benefits of applying geothermic heat *AND *F U S I O N nukes (both to be finalized by RD). To whine about the inadequacies of the 'available (or not so available?) others is not helping. Hydro is shaky by climat warming, Wind may be as well, solar panels would cover most of the planet, so why not concentrate on what is feasible? I have in mind (and published on the internet several times) a better geotherm than implemented in NZ lately. If we (humans) survive we will need much much more energy than today's staple. John M On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:01:44PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2013 11:06 AM, John Clark wrote: Lets look at the disasters associated with various energy producing projects: In 1975 the Shimantan/Banqiao hydroelectric Dam in China failed and killed 171,000 people. In 1979 the Three Mile Island reactor melted down and killed nobody. In 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear plant melted down and killed 31 immediately and 4000 many decades later. In 1979 the Morvi hydroelectric Dam in India failed and killed 1500 people, In 1998 a oil pipeline in Nigeria exploded and killed 1078 people. In 1907 the Monongah Coal Mine in West Virginia exploded and killed well over 500 people. In 1944 a liquified natural gas factory exploded in Cleveland Ohio and killed 130 people. In 2011 the Fukushima nuclear power plant melted down and killed nobody. Not only that, coal mining releases a lot more radioctivity into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever have. Brent For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including an impassioned speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voice competition, what never seems to be discussed is the elephant in the room of how much uranium resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuel power plants were replaced by conventional fission reactors, we'd burn through our uranium supplies in about 50 years flat. So fission reactors do not solve the problem. Of course there is fast breeder technology, but everbody is so shit scared about all the plutonium that would then appear on the market, making it incredibly easy for rogue states to construct nuclear weapons, that I don't see that happening any time soon either. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Telmo: unfortunately I reflected to the NZ solution on another list... - it is a convoluted - I could say: inadeqyate - technology, just as the Au version of the surface utilization. SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD??? let us say: the surface? Solar woulrd cover immense surfaces just for supplying the energy as needed TODAY and we will need a multiple of that soon... See my remark to Russell. So far NOBODY was interested in my suggestions: ewverybody blows his OWN pipe. Geotherm is under our feet - dry lamd or oceans. Pipes are stuck down for OIL, similar - if a bit longer for geothermic energy extraction with 2 pipes inserted: ONE for pumping DOWN the ultrapure (Si-free) water into a heat-exchanger at ~140+C environment, the OTHER to ascend the high pressure steam straight into the turbine. No deposit, as in NZ. JOhn Mikes On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo and other 'experts': why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) . I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know. It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar is more readily available overall. -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Brent: that is a convoluted solution! I appreciate that you love sunshine, but keep it for the beach. Have you ever calculated how much surface of the present day efficiency is required to collect - say - 1000 times the energy we use today on the Globe? Think of energy required for the missing rainfall (agriculture) and snow-melt (hydroelectricity supply) not to mention the 7-10b humans need for potable water (desalinated from seawater). As much as I know you: you know how to think BIG. JM On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/14/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo and other 'experts': why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) . I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know. It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar is more readily available overall. It might blend well with solar. There have been proposals to store solar energy by heating underground reservoirs. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Dear Telmo, oil wells went down deeper than previously estimated as feasible. Techniques are evolving. If 2, 0r 5 pipes are inadequate in transport capacity, use more. Ask the engineers - I also claim ignorance. the geological temperature vertical map is varying according to a lot of factors. Ignorance is not a good argument for not considering (and asking). John On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Hi John, On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo: unfortunately I reflected to the NZ solution on another list... - it is a convoluted - I could say: inadeqyate - technology, just as the Au version of the surface utilization. SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD??? let us say: the surface? Solar woulrd cover immense surfaces just for supplying the energy as needed TODAY and we will need a multiple of that soon... See my remark to Russell. So far NOBODY was interested in my suggestions: ewverybody blows his OWN pipe. Geotherm is under our feet - dry lamd or oceans. Pipes are stuck down for OIL, similar - if a bit longer for geothermic energy extraction with 2 pipes inserted: ONE for pumping DOWN the ultrapure (Si-free) water into a heat-exchanger at ~140+C environment, the OTHER to ascend the high pressure steam straight into the turbine. No deposit, as in NZ. Sorry, I didn't comment out of ignorance. The idea sounds very attractive. What about depth? Is the necessary depth similar to oil extraction? And what about yield? How many of these pipes would we need to replace the energy output of a typical oil rig? Is it scalable? Cheers, Telmo. JOhn Mikes On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo and other 'experts': why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) . I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know. It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar is more readily available overall. -- 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. -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Chris: if you utter reservoir - you are on the wrong track. Nothing must COME OUT from the depth. Not even what YOU pumped in into open plenum. (My objection against the NZ plant). In Hungary in the 1950s a 'hot spring well' was tried to bring out 'heat' by its own pressure. By the time it reached the surface cooling a bit (and expanded(!) from the pressure) the M U D solidified into a hot mass. There was no private enterprise in commi Hungary at that time, so the idea was scrapped. John M On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes *Sent:* Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:33 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World Telmo: unfortunately I reflected to the NZ solution on another list... - it is a convoluted - I could say: inadeqyate - technology, just as the Au version of the surface utilization. SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD??? let us say: the surface? Solar woulrd cover immense surfaces just for supplying the energy as needed TODAY and we will need a multiple of that soon... See my remark to Russell. So far NOBODY was interested in my suggestions: ewverybody blows his OWN pipe. Geotherm is under our feet - dry lamd or oceans. Pipes are stuck down for OIL, similar - if a bit longer for geothermic energy extraction with 2 pipes inserted: ONE for pumping DOWN the ultrapure (Si-free) water into a heat-exchanger at ~140+C environment, the OTHER to ascend the high pressure steam straight into the turbine. No deposit, as in NZ. JOhn Mikes If it were that easy…. Dry rock geothermal requires amongst other things large amounts of fresh water for hydraulic fracturing of the reservoir. This process needs to be repeated periodically as the reservoirs reseal up over a period of years (as is being experienced by the shale oil fracked wells) and in the case of dry rock geothermal when the heat reservoir becomes drawn down. The hot steam that comes out of the wells is too laden with minerals and salts to be used directly and it thus requires a duel loop system in which the primary loop boils water in a boiler to produce clean steam that is passed through the generators. Then there is the matter of earthquakes – including the I believe it was a 5.3 on the Richter scale tremors linked to it in Basel. Dry rock geothermal certainly does have a big upside potential – there is a whole lot of heat just a few miles below the ground, but it is not as easy or simple as you seem to think it is. For example in a lot of dry areas water supply becomes a gating factor that puts a limit on scalability – this also applies to Canadian tar sands and shale gas plays – water requirements will place a limit on how much it can scale; on the maximum annual rates of extraction that can be achieved. Chris On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo and other 'experts': why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) . I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know. It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar is more readily available overall. -- 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
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Chris: you said it. I did not refer to hydraulic fracturing' or injecting (anything) INTO THE ROCK. I am talking about EXTRACTING H E A T only, in a CLOSED system. The carrying water must not touch the surrounding 'reservoir', must stay inside the well-system, in which it heats up for ascending to the surface. There is NO 'second well, the process goes in ONE. In and out. Your last par explains exactly the difference. Accordingly the ascending steam is NOT corrosive, the reason for using highly de-ionized (ultra-pure) water to inject into the hot zone INSIDE THE DEVICE. On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: John – The term reservoir has a well understood usage, when speaking about hydraulic fracturing, to describe the engineered rock volume that is filled by micro-fissures, created by injecting water under immense pressure into the rock, at the well head. The injected slurry contains poppants. Poppants are either sand or engineered small ceramic beads. It is this gritty material that maintains the micro-fissures and allows for the creation of a three dimensional volume – i.e. the reservoir – in which water can be injected and absorb heat from the rock volume that has been exposed – a much vaster surface area – by the hydraulic fracking. I am using the term reservoir very correctly – in the terms that it is used when speaking of hydraulic fracturing. Eventually the engineered rock volume that has been created by this process of fracking begins to reseal (the overburden is immense and squeezes the micro-fissures shut over time). In addition the engineered reservoir – in the specific sense that this term is used when speaking about hydraulic fracturing – will over time become depleted as heat is removed from it. Eventually that volume of rock will get hot again, but by the time it does the engineered micro-fissures will have been squeezed shut and the reservoir will have to be re-fracked. Water is injected into this reservoir, where it is turned into hot high pressure steam that comes up the second well. This steam is far too corrosive laden with minerals to use directly and must instead be used to boil the actual water, whose high pressure steam will transfer energy into the spinning turbine. If you used the steam from the well head you would be replacing turbines every year or two. Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes *Sent:* Saturday, November 16, 2013 2:49 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World Chris: if you utter reservoir - you are on the wrong track. Nothing must COME OUT from the depth. Not even what YOU pumped in into open plenum. (My objection against the NZ plant). In Hungary in the 1950s a 'hot spring well' was tried to bring out 'heat' by its own pressure. By the time it reached the surface cooling a bit (and expanded(!) from the pressure) the M U D solidified into a hot mass. There was no private enterprise in commi Hungary at that time, so the idea was scrapped. John M On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes *Sent:* Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:33 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World Telmo: unfortunately I reflected to the NZ solution on another list... - it is a convoluted - I could say: inadeqyate - technology, just as the Au version of the surface utilization. SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD??? let us say: the surface? Solar woulrd cover immense surfaces just for supplying the energy as needed TODAY and we will need a multiple of that soon... See my remark to Russell. So far NOBODY was interested in my suggestions: ewverybody blows his OWN pipe. Geotherm is under our feet - dry lamd or oceans. Pipes are stuck down for OIL, similar - if a bit longer for geothermic energy extraction with 2 pipes inserted: ONE for pumping DOWN the ultrapure (Si-free) water into a heat-exchanger at ~140+C environment, the OTHER to ascend the high pressure steam straight into the turbine. No deposit, as in NZ. JOhn Mikes If it were that easy…. Dry rock geothermal requires amongst other things large amounts of fresh water for hydraulic fracturing of the reservoir. This process needs to be repeated periodically as the reservoirs reseal up over a period of years (as is being experienced by the shale oil fracked wells) and in the case of dry rock geothermal when the heat reservoir becomes drawn down. The hot steam that comes out of the wells is too laden with minerals and salts to be used directly and it thus requires a duel loop system in which the primary loop boils water in a boiler to produce clean steam that is passed through the generators
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Telmo wrote: *I agree. But sometimes we're lazy.My worry is always the same: the energy budget necessary to drill theholes and maintain the infrastructure compared to the yield. I'm notsaying this isn't a good idea, just that this analysis in necessary tomake it convincing. I would be glad to be convinced and then I wouldlike to have enough money to invest in your company :) Best,Telmo.* No plans, no company, with going 92. BUT... there is my (agnostic) objection to the analysis you mention. I did a lot within polymer science and technology: always restricted to the already knownw factors and data. Then: new info shows up and the stock market goes belly up. Anticipation and analysis cannot invent the unknowable future. Take a risk and be lucky! (That's how I made my patents). John M On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:41 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Telmo, oil wells went down deeper than previously estimated as feasible. Techniques are evolving. If 2, 0r 5 pipes are inadequate in transport capacity, use more. Ask the engineers - I also claim ignorance. the geological temperature vertical map is varying according to a lot of factors. Ignorance is not a good argument for not considering (and asking). I agree. But sometimes we're lazy. My worry is always the same: the energy budget necessary to drill the holes and maintain the infrastructure compared to the yield. I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, just that this analysis in necessary to make it convincing. I would be glad to be convinced and then I would like to have enough money to invest in your company :) Best, Telmo. John On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi John, On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo: unfortunately I reflected to the NZ solution on another list... - it is a convoluted - I could say: inadeqyate - technology, just as the Au version of the surface utilization. SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD??? let us say: the surface? Solar woulrd cover immense surfaces just for supplying the energy as needed TODAY and we will need a multiple of that soon... See my remark to Russell. So far NOBODY was interested in my suggestions: ewverybody blows his OWN pipe. Geotherm is under our feet - dry lamd or oceans. Pipes are stuck down for OIL, similar - if a bit longer for geothermic energy extraction with 2 pipes inserted: ONE for pumping DOWN the ultrapure (Si-free) water into a heat-exchanger at ~140+C environment, the OTHER to ascend the high pressure steam straight into the turbine. No deposit, as in NZ. Sorry, I didn't comment out of ignorance. The idea sounds very attractive. What about depth? Is the necessary depth similar to oil extraction? And what about yield? How many of these pipes would we need to replace the energy output of a typical oil rig? Is it scalable? Cheers, Telmo. JOhn Mikes On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo and other 'experts': why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) . I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know. It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar is more readily available overall. -- 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
Telmo On the US COnstitution
Telmo wrote: *I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position isessentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for**peaceful world with further increases in freedom)*. Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers, who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later amended versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME exceptions, thank you). I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st. My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome: a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, *governing*a so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic) originally excluded from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'. How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it: econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own interest on other countries? (Not to mention the availability of all level governance for enough money). JM -- 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: Telmo On the US COnstitution
Thanks, Richard, - very educative! John M On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional. As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right. Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court, Ie.: ARTICLE III - Texthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii?quicktabs_10=0#quicktabs-10 - Learn Morehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii?quicktabs_10=1#quicktabs-10 SECTION 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. SECTION 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another statehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo wrote: *I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for **peaceful world with further increases in freedom)*. Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers, who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later amended versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME exceptions, thank you). I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st. My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome: a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, *governing* a so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic) originally excluded from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'. How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it: econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own interest on other countries? (Not to mention the availability of all level governance for enough money). JM -- 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: Telmo On the US COnstitution
Thanks, Richard, excellent reverberation. I just frown when I read rich - who are they? lately the word millionaire lost it's taste: with a middle-class family home of - say - 700K value and some cash set aside: an average retiree is a millionaire. Billionaire is not so easy: there is a gap in between (at ~some hundred millions?), to be fixed if it refers to net worth of a person (or of a family) or includes ALL (also what is hidden from the IRS). It came up when some irate writer mentioned the 'millionaires' in the legislation. I try: super-rich, or ultra-rich. (I frequented a group of retired professors of good witts when I said something about 'rich' and one jumped me: Whom do you call 'rich'? and another quipped: whoever has more money than himself.. On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno, The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax burden for over 100 years. Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash usually followed by war. That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was followed by the Civil War within a decade. Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893-WWI, and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of 1929-WWII. In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash. We have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see the stock exchange reaching never before heights. So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are repeated, the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession. The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles. Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation resulted in the invention of derivatives. So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger than the value of the entire world. That sounds like a form of comp (;) Richard On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: snip If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their local powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter. I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the danger with ideologies. I agree. My belief is that human evolution - better forms of governance, not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed societies. OK. My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to sociopathic manipulations. About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the little bureaucratic sort of bosses. With some level of spiritual maturity, I can conceive that you are right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists, nor even that it is on a near horizon. The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling to think by themselves, and they confuse p - q and q - p all the times. The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to authority. We have never been modern. I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic. The problem is that p - q is far better than nothing, in the short run, so our brains are hardwired to reason by association, instead, of logical validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the logician's sense of humor). The short
Re: Belief vs Truth
Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we *THINK *of something: it DOES *exist* indeed *(in our mind)* but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Nov 2013, at 19:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/21/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. That seems to confound truth and existence. I don't see why. I was talking on the truth of the evolution facts. There are some facts that make the theory of natural selection true (if it is true). Yes. Those facts may include hardwired beliefs in human brains and then they exist whether there is a theory that expresses them or not. So you say they exist is true. What I said is that this is circular when used to define truth from evolution. It's not circular if it is grounded in facts. No. Evolution remains circular as an explanation of truth (it is not circular as an explanation of the species, but that's another topic). Bruno 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: Nuclear power
How about alcoholic drinks? They may kill, put you in a frenzy, destroy your self-control and is addictive. How about GAMBLING? it destroys families and cause tragedies.Also addictive. How about tobacco? you don't kill anybody for having used it, except yourself and maybe people in your surrounding - costing tremendeous amounts of money to cure the damages. Highly addictive. All these bring in huge revenues for governemnts (and entrepreneurs) ... JM On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees – as the workers in these state stores would be – becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks – or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California – the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition – purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it is still schedule one at the federal level. Yes… see above. The schedule one notion is also an incredible aberration. A product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make physics and math schedule one? Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is less toxic than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life – perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very beginning. Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal. It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal. Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some finite period of time. Agreed – though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason these nations did not legalize is the international treaty obligations. Perhaps ignoring them was the best they could do in that time. Washington and Colorado are now pushing the envelope; I hope this busts the criminal blocking of a return to sanity. I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last the official result of the Tadam Project, which has consisted in providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege). It is considered by the experts involved as an important success, but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to approve it, and to decide to pursue it. Since the project has been stopped, already three
Re: Nuclear power
Bruno wrote: *...Health should separate from the State, like the Church.* I respectfully disagree. Health care is a societal duty to be provided for those unfortunate who are not capable of covering their needs - like the poor, dependants of sick people, old folks (the last two only if they do not fall into categories callable 'super rich') and such duty cannot be solely based on charity. I o follow the like the Chorch part: di you mean ' the Church should separate from the State', or is Church meant as a variation for 'State' in charge of Health? (The latter not making much sense). Modern states 'make money' on everything just to cover corruption, no matter how devaastating it may be on the citizens (e.g. wars for the Special Interest wealth). I would not volunteer to propose HOW and WHERE to start refurbishing the community governance. Humanity is not 'ready' to act decently (reasonably). We have NO democracy (no system can be maintained according to the full agreement of the populace, not even for a majority of it - in which case the 'minority' would be subdued against their will) especially NOT in a cpitalistic setup where a minority of owners rules over the majority of employees and the high authorities (e.g. the US Supreme Court) allows wealthy people, 'corporations (i.e. persons(?) - )' to contribute unchecked amounts of MONEY for election bribery. And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 00:40, John Mikes wrote: How about alcoholic drinks? They may kill, put you in a frenzy, destroy your self-control and is addictive. How about GAMBLING? it destroys families and cause tragedies.Also addictive. How about tobacco? you don't kill anybody for having used it, except yourself and maybe people in your surrounding - costing tremendeous amounts of money to cure the damages. Highly addictive. There is few doubt that alcohol and tobacco are the two hardest drugs known today. That is another bad consequence of prohibition: it makes the most dangerous drug legal, and it makes schedule one products which are not much toxic and non addictive, like cannabis, LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. In fact it makes the state into a drug dealers. Many legal medication are also toxic and addictive. Tobacco is the killer one on the planet. All these bring in huge revenues for governemnts (and entrepreneurs) ... Health should separate from the State, like the Church. Bruno JM On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models for other states. and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age. I just hope the feds will not come with tanks! They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state employees – as the workers in these state stores would be – becoming arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in with the tanks – or making arrests. It remains to be seen what actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in Southern California – the region this individual was districted in. So until this insane prohibition – purely for the benefit of organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback. I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see. You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical cannabis
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Liz: your precise version (with Bruno's rounding it up) makes me evoid to call myself an atheist: An 'atheist' requires god(s) to DENY. In my (rather agnostic) worldview there is no place (requirement) for supernatural (whatever that may be) 'forces' to control nature. I feel reluctant to draw conclusions about 'nature' (everything - beyond the physicists' view) based upon what makes sense to us today. And I would ask Bruno to add to his 'Christian God' concept Allah and the Jewish god(s?) - he mentioned the Hindi ones briefly. All 'gods' are culturally benevolent - preferring the 'good' and 'useful' for the praying ones, e.g. annihilate their enemies, while THE SAME GOD is asked by those same enemies to annihilate the prayee - both hoping to be heard. Here is the societal input: murder is a sin, unless it is in the interest of society (war) when it is the ultimate heroism (or: if it is to retaliate against the infidel, when it paves the way into heaven.) I like Spudboy's argumentation. *Afterlife?* I sent a little snap to Brent about two fetuses arguing in the womb whether there is *life **beyond birth*? Brent replied with Mark Twain's bon mot: 'Since he was in that 'afterlife' world for billions of years before he was born and did not carry any adverse memories from there, he is not afraid to go back after death.' It is all in the same imagination where my mistake has its roots when I said if something exists in our mind then it surely DOES exist (there). Accepting (in Bruno's sharp view) the existence of a mind. I am adversive to a court-like processing of an 'eternal(???) soul based on a short life-span (maybe only 10 years? or 1 day?) with a verdict similar to how the injustice-systems work in the diverse societal setups and 'imagined' for my belief-system the complexity of 'us' (all living/non living creatures) falling apart at death - maybe into portions only - and joining other complexities not fallen apart.. Elements may stay and act in the new environment - a source of spiritism experienced. It embraces the reincarnation and all ghost stories without the usual explanations that may scare us. No demons haunting. *Evolution?* Not in my views with a connotation of striving for 'better' or 'final'... Changes occur to comply with given ci5rcumstances and capabilities in RELATIONS (unknown). Whatever can - will survive and the changes - better or worse - go on. If a 'god' pre-planned an evolution, why are we not started with the end-product? Why the zillion extinctions? Why the unfathomable variety? (Again a human-logic stance - ha ha). My wife, however, embraces the view of 'us' kept by 'zookeepers' in this universe for purposes unknown - does not share my ignorance and dreams about a 'purpose' of our being here. Not only by nice dreams. John Mikes On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:06 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno 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. -- 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.
testing
testing - please delete --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness
Scott bemoans James H's appreciable contempt on consciousness (or whatever it may be called) which is a brilliant moneymaker and tenuremaker for people who can't do better. Then he asked the question: I thought time didn't exist? Scott First: the past tense is objectionable unless the answer is negative (=Yes, it didn't). Then again - and I apologize if I divulge something from a private message, the list has funny ways of 'replying' - but Scott wrote among others: Difference is not the same, even if it's the same difference upon my remark on the list that - as I consider - information is difference. Well, I beg to differ: it is about the level of same. If you consider a same difference of 3 that may be absolutely 'unsame', depending on 3 what. If you include the contents of two TOEs ( I point here to my denial of omniscience, necessary for a TOE) - and the comparison is a 3, you may not duplicate THIS and so that difference is information. We usually deal in incomplete information, by incomplete modeling in our thinking. So Scott may be right: we CANNOT compare (absolutely) same differences. Scott, is this what you pointed at? John Mikes
Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011
(Including Stephens initiation of course). After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones. Maybe the words changed, references, too, conclusions are more sophisticated (?). SOME new members, as well (Please, give me credit for all those poisons the medics stuffed me withp impeding my brain and clarity of mind, if I ever had any such thing. What I see here is a Colin-position pointing to 'theoretical justification of the validity of math-statements' and Bruno's position based on Bruno's position (comp included, valid, or not). Hard to argue because all the sophistication is based on the present status of our limited ignorance and unlimited explanatory breadth of Colin's mini-solipsism (i.e. the part of the world we so far got a glimpse of). Our sciences dwell within and reach out in their conclusions to those unknowables we 'imagine' (calculate?) from that partial view of the so far experienced (and explained by the limited ways). Such is our 'scientific' view and I think none of us can be exempt to that. We think what we think we know. We conclude within. By such limited tools humanity established an incredible technology and descriptions galore to explain it to ignorants within the ignorance. Physics, engineering, bio, psych, etc. etc. And a mathematics - so fundamental in Bruno's words(?) about numbers. What we see is a complex interlacing of not always discernible items allowing more to be involved. Upon such views humanity could not have established its 'scientific' (technological) results, but being anchored into it may interfere with further understanding of the unknown. Of course we cannot think beyond our mind-contents/function limited as it may be. (My fundamentals among others: Colin and Robert Rosen). What the WORLD is, if it exists (what does that mean?) what we call a universe or existence is hazy. No outside view. With best wishes to 2011 and beyond 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: Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011
Right on and Onward - Stephen, that is my point as well. Our thinking loop is closed inside our mind. On another list (psich etc. mainly) they babble about '*wave* as the FORM of energy etc. and I asked the big question I have asked many physicists (and the best answer was: Good question) WHAT IS THE MARVEL YOU PEOPLE CALL - E N E R G Y ? Moving (changing) cannot come from the 'inside (view?)' otherwise why was 'it' in the position to be moved/changed FROM to begin with? In my (naive) worldview going one little step back from the Big Bang(?) into a 'Plenitude' of everything in perfect (and unlimited) symmetry with total interaction (postulating violations of itself - as I tried to explain) (Karl Jaspers Forum 2003 Networks of Networks) where I tried to approach the 'motive' as the trend to RETURN to the symmetry from 'complexities' (like the Big Crunch, Black holes, infinite dissipation and similar daydreams). It may DO things assigned to that so called 'energy'. But this was also only MY daydream from WITHIN. I tried to trap Bruno (whom I appreciate no end) into some idea HOW numbers can do ANYTHING (e.g. GENERATE a change/movement) but in vain. If 'universal numbers' (new to me after my 'vacation') can indeed compute, they need initiation to do so. Our primitive embryonic computers have to be plugged into electricity to work. Otherwise they are expensive paperweights. What is a 'universal number' *plugged in * to do anything? or is it only OUR thinking to do 'numbery' functions? Where do WE draw our mobility from? Not from explanation/definition of how we act. So - in spite of our agreement, dear Stephen, there MUST BE an outside view - we just don't get it. We may get the result of it and try to explain within our ignorance. In Colin's mini-solipsism. Chaque-un a son gout. Thanks for reflecting to my post and best wishes to all John On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi John! No outside view That is the point that I was trying to make from the start. This is why I keep repeating that Numerical Idealism is an insufficient theory of everything; there cannot be an outside that acts to distinguish numbers from each other! An interesting discussion of this can be found here: http://kims.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/time_XIV.pdf Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: John Mikes Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:19 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011 (Including Stephens initiation of course). After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones. Maybe the words changed, references, too, conclusions are more sophisticated (?). SOME new members, as well (Please, give me credit for all those poisons the medics stuffed me withp impeding my brain and clarity of mind, if I ever had any such thing. What I see here is a Colin-position pointing to 'theoretical justification of the validity of math-statements' and Bruno's position based on Bruno's position (comp included, valid, or not). Hard to argue because all the sophistication is based on the present status of our limited ignorance and unlimited explanatory breadth of Colin's mini-solipsism (i.e. the part of the world we so far got a glimpse of). Our sciences dwell within and reach out in their conclusions to those unknowables we 'imagine' (calculate?) from that partial view of the so far experienced (and explained by the limited ways). Such is our 'scientific' view and I think none of us can be exempt to that. We think what we think we know. We conclude within. By such limited tools humanity established an incredible technology and descriptions galore to explain it to ignorants within the ignorance. Physics, engineering, bio, psych, etc. etc. And a mathematics - so fundamental in Bruno's words(?) about numbers. What we see is a complex interlacing of not always discernible items allowing more to be involved. Upon such views humanity could not have established its 'scientific' (technological) results, but being anchored into it may interfere with further understanding of the unknown. Of course we cannot think beyond our mind-contents/function limited as it may be. (My fundamentals among others: Colin and Robert Rosen). What the WORLD is, if it exists (what does that mean?) what we call a universe or existence is hazy. No outside view. With best wishes to 2011 and beyond 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.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message
Bruno to Stephen discussion
Dear Bruno, you wrote to Stephen: ...A machine is just a number interpreted by a universal number. A universal number is a number u such that there is an arithmetical relation R with R(u, x, y, z) - phi_x(y) = z provable in PA (say). I wonder if an ' *a r i t h m e t i c a *l relation' (any* r e l a t i o n *, for that matter) ((Autocratically)) D O E S anything, or intitates Doing/Changing or even Calculating (in number systems or anywhere.) If not, the system is just sitting there, waiting for the operator (= us) to DO anything. That is from the 'inside' look of course. Another personal peculiarity of mine: An *O B S E R V E R* in my views is any*THING* (including anybody of course) acknowledging any change. Change in this respect can be a so far not acknowledged quale coming into the observation (what I call information). . E.g. an electric charge coming into the sphere of an oppoite charge (electrode?) Best regards and wishes 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: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
Hi, Colin, I enjoyed your diatribe. (From time to time I accept some of your ideas and even include them into my ways of thinking - which may be a praise or a threat). Question: Could you briefly identify your usage of science - even scientist? (sometimes I consider an 'average' (=multitude of) scientist succumbing to *conventional *ideas called 'scientific' and working within that conventional world-view we get in schools). And thanks for mentioning religion. Best regards John M On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM, ColinHales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folk, Our belief system state in relation to the the truth/falsehood of COMP is a truly bizarre corner of science. The concept is simple, yet as an empirical proposition, it has eluded the kind of definitive testing that, for example, basic physics would accept as conclusive. If X is a potential scientific belief, then empirical examination of the consequences of X adds weight to a body of evidence suggesting that adopting the belief is of predictive utility. Fine Fine Fine. If it works, then X is restated in some usable form ... say 'law of nature X' or X_lon. In the formulation of a testable version of belief X, however, is a process of critical argument that helps us define what X means and what evidence might be critically dependent on the truth of X. During the critical argument, you find and weigh up the feasibility of X as a law of nature and what easily accessible consequences might facilitate an early decision on X. During this pre 'law of nature' phase, X might be discarded because it is easy to find sets of conditions which are inconsistent with X... so we then, sensibly, adopt the position that X is untenable as a truth of the natural world. And we move on ... all the while keeping X as a possibility ... albeit improbable. In the greater environment of the claim X = 'computationalism', when you look at the way science is behaving, one can empirically measure psychologically bizarre belief systems. That is, critical examination revealing low likelihood fails to become evidence consistent with COMP's falsehood. The truth of COMP has never been proven in any logical or empirical way. Yet legions of 'Artificial General Intelligence' (AGI) workers spend tens and hundreds of $millions on projects whose outcomes are critically dependent on COMP being true. and the investors are _never_ told about the fundamental act of faith they are embarked upon. a level of faith that would never be acceptable elsewhere. We have multiple instances of people who have elevated the level of doubt surrounding COMP way beyond the levels normally accepted as making a proposition highly suspect yet here are the legions of AGI workers ... all plodding along on faith, continuing to believe for reasons that I cannot fathom. I can cite many arguments that, despite attempts to confirm it, find good reasons supporting COMP's falsehood. Anywhere else, where truths are entertained despite good reasoning, acting as if COMP was true makes it a religious proposition, not science. Now, I am not a psychologist. But I have read a lot on the history of science and have lived within it all my adult life. I am trying to understand what broken logic underpins blind faith in COMP that is also consistent with a more general belief_malfunction in science. After several years of analysis I think I have a proposition that is predictive of this strange state in science: There seems to be a profound, institutionalized failure within scientists that results, for whatever reason, in an inability to distinguish between the actual natural world and a (mathematical) model of its behaviour, as apparent to a scientist. For reasons I cannot fathom, the idea that these two things can be different is like a massive blind-spot. If you raise the possibility, very bizarre objections arise that are indistinguishable from the objections that a believer has in their religion. I will continue to battle this blind spot as best I can. Thanks for the Maudlin. I'll add it to the pile of COMP = FALSE evidence. By the way, I have a pile of zero height for COMP = TRUE. I do however, have evidence of believers that number in the millions. Weird, huh? Cheers Colin Hales -- 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.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@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
Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
Colin, thanks for reflecting to my post.
You asked: when does observation and criticism bicome diatribe?
I think when it indulges in topical/symbolic applications what the reader
cannot comprehend well.
Or: when the reader reflects to a discussion in a language he is not
sufficiently familiar with and uses words of inaccurate meaning.
.
Your 'tabulated' expansion about a natural world is referring still to the
minisolipsically imagined portion of what we think today and applies the
formulations therein. Model -
restrictions applied. Measurement is also a comparison of the already known
items - blown up to truth. Criticism may be more than that, if we do not
stick to (reasonably) scientific.
Sorry,
John
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Colin Hales
c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.auwrote:
Interleaved...
John Mikes wrote:
Hi, Colin,
I enjoyed your diatribe. (From time to time I accept some of your ideas and
even include them into my ways of thinking - which may be a praise or a
threat).
Question: Could you briefly identify your usage of science - even
scientist?
The following is the *measured, average* generic behaviour which captures
the basic common factors of scientific behaviour across all physical science
disciplines:
*tn*
The natural world in * insert context* behaves as follows: *insert
behaviour*
1.1
*t0*
The natural world in * the context of a human being scientific about the
natural world * behaves as follows: * to create and manage the members
of a set T of statements of type tn, each of which is a statement
predictive of a natural regularity in a specific context in the natural
world external to and independent of the human arrived at through the
process of critical argument and that in principle can be refuted through
the process of experiencing evidence of the regularity*
1.2
T =
{*t0*, *t1*, *t2*, … ,* tn*, … *tN-1*, *tN*}
1.3
**The 'natural world' in this particular instance, is 'the scientist'. *This
is a measurement, not a guess. You empirically sample human scientists and
average across all sciences. t0 is is what you get.*
Behaviour according to *t0* is fundamentally prevented from ever
explaining and observer because it presupposes an observer. (that is
'experiencing evidence')
So, *t0* is what we actually do. What we _should do_ to explain an
observer is a whole other area. It is the difference between the two
activities that I spoke of in the original 'diatribe' . When does
observation and criticism become diatribe? :-)
cheers
colin
(sometimes I consider an 'average' (=multitude of) scientist succumbing
to *conventional *ideas called 'scientific' and working within that
conventional world-view we get in schools).
And thanks for mentioning religion.
Best regards
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.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@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: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.
Stathis, upload the human brain? I suppose (and hope) you are talking about the wider meaning of brain, not the physiological tissue (fless) figment the 2002 medical science tackles with in our crania. THAT extended brain which is ready to monitor (report?) unexpect(able)ed mental functions, as I wrote: e.g. the difference in meaning between I missed you yesterday vs. I hate broccoli. Not just mAmp-s and tissue-encephalograms. We know so little about our (extendable?) mental functions, every second may bring novelty into it, so where would you draw the line for the 'upload'? at yesterday's inventory? Then again your statement *...I don't accept that computers cannot have the same qualia as brains... * makes sense to me if we postulate that THOSE computers MUST HAVE the same qualia. Unknown ones, undetected ones, but ALL OF THEM. I find this condition beyond reason. Or would you restrict our science to yesterday? John M On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: I think perhaps the key to this can be seen in your requirement... Doing this is equivalent to constructing a human level AI, since the simulation could be given information and would respond just as a human would given the same information. I would say this is not a circumstance that exemplified human level intellect. Consider a human encounter with something totally unknown but human and AI. Who is there to provide 'information'? If the machine is like a human it shouldn't need someone there to spoon feed it answers. We let the AGI loose to encounter something neither human nor AGI has encountered before. That is a real AGI. The AGI can't be given the answers. You may be able to provide a software model of how to handle novelty. This requires a designers to say, in software, everything you don't know is to be known like this . This, however, is not AGI (human). It is merely AI. It may suffice for a planetary rover with a roughly known domain of unknowns of a certain kind. But when it encounters a cylon that rips it widgets off it won't be able to characterize it like a human does. Such behaviour is not an instance of a human encounter with the unknown. I am considering a special type of AI, an upload of a human brain. A bottom up AI, if you like. SPICE allows you to simulate a complex circuit by adding together simpler components. You can construct a simulated amplifier out of simulated transistors, resistors, capacitors etc., then input a simulated signal, and observe the simulated output. You construct an uploaded brain out of simulated neurons, input a simulated signal to simulated sense organs, and observe the simulated output to simulated muscles. The input signal could be a question and the output signal couldbe verbal output in response to the question. If the SPICE model is a good one its output would be the same as the output of a real circuit given the same input. If the brain upload model is a good one its response to questions would be the same as the responses of a biological brain. For example, you could tell it the result of experiments, it would come up with a hypothesis, propose further experiments for you to do, then modify the hypothesis depending on the result of those experiments. There is no specific novelty-handling model: the upload is merely an accurate model of brain behaviour, and the novelty-handling emerges from this. The analogy is that the SPICE software does not have a specific model for what to when the input is sine wave, what to do when the input is a square wave, and so on, but rather the appropriate output is produced for any input given just the models of the components and their connections. Humans literally encounter the unknown in our qualia - an intracranial phenomenon. Qualia are the observation. We don't encounter the unknown in the single or collective behaviour of our peripheral nerve activity. Instead we get a unified assembly of perceptual fields erected intra-cranially from the peripheral feeds, within which the actual distal world is faithfully represented well enough to do science. These perceptual fields are not always perfect. The perceptual fields can be fooled. You can perhaps say that a software-black-box-scientist could guess (Bayesian stabs in the dark). But those stabs in the dark are guesses at (a) how the peripheral siganlling measurement activity will behave, or perhaps (b) a guess at the contents of a human-model-derived software representation of the external world. Neither (a) or (b) can be guaranteed identical to the human qualia version of the the external distal world _in a situation of encounter with radical novelty (that a human AI designer has never encountered). This observational needs of a scientist are a rather useful way to cut
Re: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.
Stathis, my imagination does not run that high. If I imagine myself as an alien scientist, I would be self centered (pretentious?) enough to imagine that I know more about those stupid humans and don't have to experiment on computer - THEN on the real stuff, to LEARN how they are. I would know. I don't 'imagine' myself such a stupid alien scientist (ha ha). The fact that such an 'alien scientist' (a-sc) LEARNED about humans - and we just imagine such (a-sc) - is proof enough that THEY are above us in mental capabilities. So it sounds weird to me to 'imagine' a smarter mind for ourselves how it would appraise us. ANother question: do you find it reasonable that such (a-sc) will condone all those figments of our human existence which we live with (e.g. food, human logical questions/answers, etc.)? even our material-figmented physical world? We, humans, are a peculiar kind, in our so far evolved mini-solipsism of the world we are even less informed that possible, closed in into our 'mindset' of yesterday (I think we agreed on that on this list) and our imagination can work also only WITHIN. (With few very slowly achievable extensions/expansions that will be added to 'yesterday's' inventory.) Even if we pretend to free-up and step beyond - as in 'fantastic' sci-fi. John M On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:53 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, upload the human brain? I suppose (and hope) you are talking about the wider meaning of brain, not the physiological tissue (fless) figment the 2002 medical science tackles with in our crania. THAT extended brain which is ready to monitor (report?) unexpect(able)ed mental functions, as I wrote: e.g. the difference in meaning between I missed you yesterday vs. I hate broccoli. Not just mAmp-s and tissue-encephalograms. We know so little about our (extendable?) mental functions, every second may bring novelty into it, so where would you draw the line for the 'upload'? at yesterday's inventory? Imagine that you are an alien scientist who encounters humans for the first time and you don't realise that they have minds. You do, however, notice that the humans behave in complex ways, and that their behaviour seems to be controlled by electrical impulses originating in the brain. So you set yourself the task of making a computer model of the matter in the brain, using your advanced scanning techniques to determine its precise composition, and your advanced knowledge of computational chemistry. That model programmed into a computer is called a brain upload. You can run it and predict what the human would do in various situations: if you poked him with a sharp stick, if you asked him a certain question, if you withheld food from him for a certain period. You would run the model and do the experiment in the real human to see if they match up. If they don't, then there is a problem with your model, and you have to examine the brain more closely or do more research into computational chemistry to rectify it. -- 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: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.
Stathis, I like your implications: *... I assume you think that such an attempt would fail, that although some processes in the brain such as chemistry and the behaviour of electric fields can be modelled, there are other processes that can't be modelled. What processes are these, and what evidence do you have that they exist?* I am speaking about processes we don't (yet?) know at all, like some centuries ago electricity etc. etc. and in due course we learn about phenomena not fitting into our existing 'models'. I don't volunteer to describe such processes before we learn about them (how stupid of me) - netiher do I have evidence for the existence and behavior of such unkown/able processes. Our cultural induction allows a widening of models, processes, phenomena, mechanisms. We even advanced from the Geocentric vision. Have a prosperous day John M On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:40 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, my imagination does not run that high. If I imagine myself as an alien scientist, I would be self centered (pretentious?) enough to imagine that I know more about those stupid humans and don't have to experiment on computer - THEN on the real stuff, to LEARN how they are. I would know. I don't 'imagine' myself such a stupid alien scientist (ha ha). The fact that such an 'alien scientist' (a-sc) LEARNED about humans - and we just imagine such (a-sc) - is proof enough that THEY are above us in mental capabilities. So it sounds weird to me to 'imagine' a smarter mind for ourselves how it would appraise us. The alien scientist example was to eliminate any preconceptions about mind. The scientist is technically competent and is merely attempting to model the behaviour of the brain - the trajectories of the atoms within it. I assume you think that such an attempt would fail, that although some processes in the brain such as chemistry and the behaviour of electric fields can be modelled, there are other processes that can't be modelled. What processes are these, and what evidence do you have that they exist? ANother question: do you find it reasonable that such (a-sc) will condone all those figments of our human existence which we live with (e.g. food, human logical questions/answers, etc.)? even our material-figmented physical world? They may or they may not. I am assuming for the sake of this example that they do not consider such questions at all, but only the mechanics of human behaviour. Like us trying to understand the behaviour of a cyclone, which is separate from the question of whether the cyclone has good or bad effects or indeed whether the cyclone has some sort of mind. We, humans, are a peculiar kind, in our so far evolved mini-solipsism of the world we are even less informed that possible, closed in into our 'mindset' of yesterday (I think we agreed on that on this list) and our imagination can work also only WITHIN. (With few very slowly achievable extensions/expansions that will be added to 'yesterday's' inventory.) Even if we pretend to free-up and step beyond - as in 'fantastic' sci-fi. John M -- 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: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.
Stathis wrote: *One thing that we have found with all new physical phenomena is that they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically. You're postulating that not only does the brain use processes that we have not yet discovered, but that these processes, unlike everything else we have ever discovered, are non-algorithmic. What reason have you for postulating this?* ** I am not postulating, I am deducing from past learning facts (I mentioned one) . Algorithmic is a good way to proceed WITHIN OUR FIGMENT of physical world. We have no assurance that there is no 'other way(s)' to think. Remember my agnostic stance? I cannot follow your ...*everything else we have ever discovered, are non-algorithmic... * ** There is a funny idea about 'algorithmic thinking' and I tend to consider it a consequence i.e. secondary way in our understanding development. I base this on som primitive languages (my mother tongue is one of them) where the pristine discovery of DOUBLE parts entered as a 'unit' (men with 1 eye = half-eyed, 1 foot = half legged, 1 hand = half handed etc.) and only later did they turn into a penta-based arithmetic (cf: digits) - the basis IMO for the Roman numerals up to 50, - all preceding our arithmetic logic. (Remember: the Romans subtracted 3 from 5 as 5,4,3,- resulting in 3 in their calendar conting). This was way before th need for a zero. I cannot discuss this with Bruno, who has deeply ingrained logic within arithmetics of new. Your other formulation *...we have found with all new physical phenomena is that they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically...* ** putting the cart before the horse: in explaining attempts for half-way (overstatement) understood phenomena science resulted to apply algorithmic logic to build the physical system - not primarily, but in the course of millennia - and later on it looked comfortable to BASE all those considerations upon the conclusional principle. It works well and practically. No evidence, however, for a generating course in my view. Stathis, I do not seek 'belivers' towards my ideas. I gave you my answer FYI and will accept your non-acceptance. I *know* about SO much *that I do not know* and am SO old that I need peace, not war. Have a prosperous life John M PS. About my Roman numerals (using 'pentinal' instead of 'decimal' (I did not research it): I, II, III, (was too much, so they reached to the 'pentinal' group-sign of 2 lines in an angle V instead and introduced: IV (one off from the pentinel - five) V, VI, VII, VIII and again reaching ahead to the double pentinel (2 Vs written upside down on each other into an X) for nine = one off this: IX - arriving at the double pentinel X (later called ten - dix , including the sign: *2Vs **D*(OUBLE)* i(*nto) *X* as five (fusion?) played into the sign V. Above X the system continued all the way to 50 - showing a special arrangement for the I sign for numerals. After which they continued to the hundred (C) which was so much that it needed extra care. Who had 100 oxen? not even Cincinnatti or his Latin predeccessors. JM * * * * On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, I like your implications: ... I assume you think that such an attempt would fail, that although some processes in the brain such as chemistry and the behaviour of electric fields can be modelled, there are other processes that can't be modelled. What processes are these, and what evidence do you have that they exist? I am speaking about processes we don't (yet?) know at all, like some centuries ago electricity etc. etc. and in due course we learn about phenomena not fitting into our existing 'models'. I don't volunteer to describe such processes before we learn about them (how stupid of me) - netiher do I have evidence for the existence and behavior of such unkown/able processes. Our cultural induction allows a widening of models, processes, phenomena, mechanisms. We even advanced from the Geocentric vision. One thing that we have found with all new physical phenomena is that they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically. You're postulating that not only does the brain use processes that we have not yet discovered, but that these processes, unlike everything else we have ever discovered, are non-algorithmic. What reason have you for postulating this? -- 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
Re: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.
Since the Honored Listers refrain from signing their remarks, it is hard to decipher to whom I write: Brent, Stathis, maybe others who just barged in? So I go topical. First: randomness in the mind. I am functionally against the term because it would eliminate all logical consequence and order what we instigated for the world by establishing physial law (models) and the like. Randomness arises from the unknown parts 'joining' our models yet influencing the outcome we observe. We can ONLY think in models - trhat is how our mind CAN work and formulate our topicla models from ingredients *we know*. Of course our knowledge is * partial* and all those topics are connected to more than our *yesterday's inventory* (= our mini-solipsistic worldview-content). Then: algorithmic. The way our 'scientific' thinking operates. Especially since we have those embryonic tools called: computers (*our *Turing machines) based on algorithmic interactions. The example of Zeuss' anger is ridiculous, it was included just to make the point. There may be other ways of non-algorithmic reasoning which are not so preposterous (however even in those cases it is not excluded to invent in the future new algorithmic ways we can apply either). As a non-physicist, I would rather keep out from the lengthy vernacular discussions of the possible and not-so-possible pseudo-consequences of thought-experimental oddities. (Starting with the really ingenious EPR). D. Bohm I highly appreciate as a philosopher. John M On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote: On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 2/9/2011 4:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Physical laws aren't out there. They are models we invent. So of course we like to invent algorithmic ones because they are more usable. People used to invent non-algorithmic ones, like Zeus does that when he's angry. but they were hard to apply. QM is entirely algorithmic since it includes inherent randomness. However this is probably not important for the function of brains. Did you mean to say QM is *not* entirely algorithmic? Right. If randomness is important in the brain it is then a further step to show that true randomness, rather than pseudorandomness, is necessary. Of course any finite amount of true randomness can be reproduced by pseudorandomness, so the challenge to show true randomness is a mug's game. That's a bit simplistic. The nett result of EPR/Bell/Aspect is either- indeterminism-or-nonlocal-hidden-variable. If NLHV's can be disproved, that proves indeterminism But I don't see any way to disprove NLHVs. Within non-relativistic QM Bohm showed that a NLHV interpretation is equivalent to standard QM. Goldstein et al claim to be able to extend this to relativistic QFT, although I haven't read their papers. Everett's MWI a deterministic theory. Do you regard it as having NLHVs since it exists in Hilbert space? I think it comes down to which model you want to apply - at least until there is some further guidance from experiment. From a purely mathematical viewpoint, there is no way to show that a finite string of symbols is truly random. All experimental results are finite - hence my simplistic comment. 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: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.
Brent: I looked up random:definition in Google - lots of anything goes - hap hazardous. I was reluctant, because in my mother tongue there is no equivalent of 'random', we say the German exbeliebig variation - whatever you LIKE. (tetszoeleges, akarmilyen). Most advanced countries use 'random' nowadays, if you are right - in the sense of the topically restricted version. Pseudo-random? Russell wrote the book on it - alas, I missed it so far. Useful predictions? useful for what? for the limited topical application in our present and conservative(?) science application like QM? I try to include more than 'yesterday's inventory'. I would not like to refer to Pat Robertson as science-discussion potentate. Your closing par still abides within our presently known inventory, even in the hypothetical ones.\ I visualize the 'rest of the world' - the unknown at present, in which algorithmic may not be the only acceptable base. Or: an algorithmic would be expanded into domains beyond our present imagination. As e.g. the universal machine of Bruno MAY work in ways un-followable for us today and you may call it 'it's algorithm'. It is all included into 'everything'. On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: On 2/13/2011 3:29 PM, John Mikes wrote: Since the Honored Listers refrain from signing their remarks, it is hard to decipher to whom I write: Brent, Stathis, maybe others who just barged in? So I go topical. First: randomness in the mind. I am functionally against the term because it would eliminate all logical consequence Not really. QM makes stochastic predictions, yet it is extremely good at making useful predictions. I think there is a misconception that random=anything goes. and order what we instigated for the world by establishing physial law (models) and the like. Randomness arises from the unknown parts 'joining' our models yet influencing the outcome we observe. We can ONLY think in models - trhat is how our mind CAN work and formulate our topicla models from ingredients *we know*. Of course our knowledge is *partial* and all those topics are connected to more than our *yesterday's inventory* (= our mini-solipsistic worldview-content). Then: algorithmic. The way our 'scientific' thinking operates. Especially since we have those embryonic tools called: computers (*our *Turing machines) based on algorithmic interactions. The example of Zeuss' anger is ridiculous, it was included just to make the point. I don't think it's so ridiculous since in fact people have reasoned like that in the past (and some still do, e.g. Pat Robertson). But it was to make the point that some kinds of reasoning don't lend themselves to useful application because they lack predictive power. There may be other ways of non-algorithmic reasoning which are not so preposterous (however even in those cases it is not excluded to invent in the future new algorithmic ways we can apply either). Sure. There's reasoning by analolgy, simple curve-fitting extrapolation, gut feeling,... It's just that we'd like to have a way of making precise predictions that every can agree are the predictions - and that implies an algorithm. Brent As a non-physicist, I would rather keep out from the lengthy vernacular discussions of the possible and not-so-possible pseudo-consequences of thought-experimental oddities. (Starting with the really ingenious EPR). D. Bohm I highly appreciate as a philosopher. John M On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote: On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 2/9/2011 4:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Physical laws aren't out there. They are models we invent. So of course we like to invent algorithmic ones because they are more usable. People used to invent non-algorithmic ones, like Zeus does that when he's angry. but they were hard to apply. QM is entirely algorithmic since it includes inherent randomness. However this is probably not important for the function of brains. Did you mean to say QM is *not* entirely algorithmic? Right. If randomness is important in the brain it is then a further step to show that true randomness, rather than pseudorandomness, is necessary. Of course any finite amount of true randomness can be reproduced by pseudorandomness, so the challenge to show true randomness is a mug's game. That's a bit simplistic. The nett result of EPR/Bell/Aspect is either- indeterminism-or-nonlocal-hidden-variable. If NLHV's can be disproved, that proves indeterminism But I don't see any way to disprove NLHVs. Within non-relativistic QM Bohm showed that a NLHV interpretation is equivalent to standard QM. Goldstein et al claim to be able to extend this to relativistic QFT
Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
David, I was laughing all the way from the computer that '7 does not exist'. And yes, it does not. Do qualia exist without the substrate they serve for as qualia? It goes into our deeper thought to identify 'existing' - I am willing to go as far as if our mind handles it, 'it' DOES exist so the quale like; 7(?) [i.e. the monitor for the eggs in your fridge] is existing. Not answering the question 'what it is? - but principally I am also against ontology in a worldview of change, where being makes only sense as transitionally becoming and transition substitutes for stagnancy. Panta Rhei also boggles my mind, especially when I cut out conventional time. I asked several times: what are numbers? without getting a reasonable reply. Sometimes I really like 1Z's twists. On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:32 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 14, 6:21 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 14 February 2011 12:35, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told you 7 doesn't exist. Wouldn't this then imply that computation also doesn't exist, in an analogous sense? I can still have seven eggs in my fridge, and I can still have a computation running on a physical computer. And that consequently any computational characterisation of the mental is in itself a mere fiction, reducing to whatever physical behaviour is picked out under the rules of a formal game? If computation is multiply realisable, it never reduces to any particular physical behaviour, even if it always instantiated a such I recall that you aren't committed to CTM per se, but if what you say about mathematics is true, and only the physical is real, wouldn't it follow a priori that CTM just eliminates the mind? No. Every running programme is physical. Only programmes with nothing to run on are eliminated I know you've said before that reduction isn't elimination, but I'm not clear what is supposed to have any claim to reality here, other than the physical tokens instantiating the computation. David If you have a physical token running a computation, you have a computation. What is eliminated? -- 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: Templeton: Faith in Science
Dear Bruno,
I wonder if you read my essay of 2000 Science - Religion upon which
Russell wrote in ire:
Don't you dare calling my science a religion! expressing similar (almost)
basis - not in the spirit of this list (or your particular stance), but
visualizing what I call 'conventional' science, the figment developed over
the past millennia upon halfway (maybe less) understood and partially
observed phenomena. - I mean 'THAT' efficient and miraculous technology,
what humanity uses as of yesterday.
The only difference I can see as fundamental to your present post is the
application of the word: * T r u t h * of which you state: 'there is'. I
think: 'there is not'. There is YOUR truth and MY truth and in our
individual mini-solipsism (Colin) certain aspects may match - giving some
sort of communal belief system in scientific terms as well, so a ('partial')
truth has merits, what many may believe. Or: believe IN.
I find it dangerous to include funding from billionaires into establishing
more credit for the hearsay-based so called 'religions' - there is too much
in the world, without it. It not only stifles free thinking, it may give
justifiction to aberrant behavior, brutality, wars, oppression and hate,
above all the overpopulation of this Earth in the name of a God-given-SOUL
at conception.
(Never mind the animals and the artificial fertilization processes).
I could see a 'difference' between what people call religion vs, what people
call science in the methodology: in the former the hearsay-provided teaching
is *believed in faith -* while in the so called (conventional) sciences the
hearsay of (poorly- maybe mis-understood) observences (by lit and reputable
professors) is belived at face value, sometimes re-checked occasionally by a
methodology based on instruments designed FOR such belief system proper,
applying the (re)trospectively occurring (presumable) results for a
(usually mathematical?) match, as the big 'scientific achievement' and
proof(?), before including them into a faithful belief.
John M
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks Brent. But I am s bad in selling and advertizing. I might make
an attempt because I surely agree we should bring bridges between religion
and science, although I would say we should not build bridges, but demolish
instead the artificial wall we have build in between science and religion.
There is no difference at all between science and religion. Both, when
separated, are pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. There is truth, and we are
searching it, that's all. Just that politics and short term goal (power)
interfere with this.
Bruno
On 17 Feb 2011, at 01:02, Brent Meeker wrote:
Need funding, Bruno? The Theology of Arithmetic should be a shoo-in.
Brent
Original Message
From this week's Nature re: why some scientists are uneasy with Templeton
-
Opening paragraph:
At the headquarters of the John Templeton Foundation, a dozen
kilometres outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the late billionaire
seems to watch over everything. John Templeton’s larger-than-life
bust stands at one end of the main conference room. His life-sized
portrait smiles down from a side wall. His face peers out of framed
snapshots propped on bookshelves throughout the many offices.
It seems fitting that Templeton is keeping an eye on the foundation that
he created in 1987, and that consumed so much of his time and energy.
With a current endowment estimated at US$2.1 billion, the organization
continues to pursue Templeton’s goal of building bridges between science
and religion. Each year, it doles out some $70 million in grants, more
than $40 million of which goes to research in fields such as cosmology,
evolutionary biology and psychology.
Brian
--
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.
Faith in Science.pdf
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: Come Again?
m.a. and Jason go into philosophy. Firstly: eternal is not a time limit, not even with that questionable figment of time we use in our imaging about our universe (for visualizing a 'physical' system). Secondly it does not seem so safe to step out from our restricted and widely accepted solipsism of the so far learned (partially un-understood?) 'physical world' figments - using those terms we deduced from within such system (oscillatory, holographic, etc.). Thirdly: with infinite (not a number) ingredients potentially participating in unlimited Big Bangs (if we suppose such at all in terms of our yesterday's physical knowledge) in unrestricted topical variations - the probability (pardon me for that word what I find immaterial) of a TOTAL match between such events is negligible (call it zero?) And to Jason's Lastly: I salute your indecisiveness about the term 'time' and its consequences, relativity or not. John M On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:47 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: Given modern physics and cosmology, does Nietzsche's idea of eternal return have any validity?m.a. -- In a few ways I think it could be argued that it does. One is the oscillatory universe idea, which will happen if the mass of the universe is below a certain threshold or if the expansion rate is not constant and will decrease. Currently it seems to be accelerating, however. It is theorized (I think by Loop Quantum Gravity or string theory) that at a point when all the matter in the universe comes to a single point (or close to that) gravity will momentarily reverse and cause a new expansion. According to the holographic principle, there is a finite number of ways the matter in a finite volume of space can be arranged, so eventually the pattern will repeat. Also, by eternal inflation you could say there are an infinite number of big-bangs, and again some of them would be duplicates of the observable universe. Lastly, you might argue that relativity's proposal of a 4-dimensional space-time means we are always in every moment, which perhaps has similar implications to the idea of living every moment of one's life an infinite number of times. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@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: Templeton: Faith in Science
Dear Bruno,
let me reply in fragments - your two responses are too comprehensive for one
post for me.
So for now: T R U T H .
*I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and that is
the motor of my research.*
is IMO very different from your: *Now what is a truth?...* you go on with.
All I referred to is a truth (yours or mine etc., from which you
emphasized 'mine' only) and that gives a difference what I wanted to point
to.
In my worldview of only partial knowledge, in an unlimited complexity of
everything (beyond our limitations and imagination) your plain 'truth'
cannot exist, but everybody is entitled to his or her (personal?) cut-truth
to believe (in).
I would not argue against your neoneoplatonist (??) truth. Your father
was a wise man.
I don't think there is much difference between the stance of the two of us
in this topic (if we discount your misreading on the exclusivity of 'my
truth').
I even tried to 'touch' the SHARED part of all individual solipsisms into a
common belief what many misunderstand as a communal knowledge of the world.
Beside such shared views everybody has personal aspects - maybe not
expressed all the time. The 'accepted' and shared knowledge is the basis of
our conventional sciences (math included?).
Then Brent interjected:
*It isn't faith if it's based on evidence (even if it's wrong).*
*(*with - I think - Bruno's addition:
*It is faith when you lack proof. You are confusing faith and blind
faith.)*
**
**
Brent is close to my position: *there is no evidence*, only excerpts of our
restricted (limited) view (knowledge) - the partial topical 'model' of the
totality that entered our 'solipsism' so far.
The same applies to Bruno's *proof* - it also can be drawn only from our
personal and so far acquired 'model' of the topical knowledge we already
carry.
In view of our steadily increasing information about more and more from the
totality (from Copernicus, through Mendel to Watson-Crick, or J.S.Bach and
L.DaVinci, etc. etc.) 'old proof' is no 'evidence' at a later stage of
increased knowledge. So 'faith' seems discredited - at least not durable.
I 'think' this is Brent:
*But faith is exactly what religions forbid one to reset.*
(Without the 'but') yes, it is essential for the survival of formal
religions. To keep the old hearsay alive and within the 'faith' the
believers carry.
And (I think) Bruno's paragraph compares some theocratic and scientific
beliefs in the spirit as I wrote in my essay. We DO believe in tenets of
conventional science. Use them as proof, as evidence, base conclusions upon
them, construct instruments and measurements (comparison) showing
similarities between those details we included into our explanations to give
some understanding to phenomena we only partially glimpsed. At our present
primitive state we cannot encompass the comp[lexity of 'them all' and the
relentless change in which our world - what? - exists? works? stagnates (as
in ontology?) or just exceeds our mental capabilities?
Finally:
A *BIG*, religious(!) -- *A M E N* -- to the 2 statements:
*I am certainly a bit anxious about that. But it is not the fault of
religion per se that humans pervert the original inquiry. *
and:
*That is far too generous. Religion is the perversion of inquiry.*
(Meaning of course the traditional theocratic ones).
Thanks.
John M
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2011, at 20:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear John,
Dear Bruno,
I wonder if you read my essay of 2000 Science - Religion upon which
Russell wrote in ire:
Don't you dare calling my science a religion! expressing similar (almost)
basis - not in the spirit of this list (or your particular stance), but
visualizing what I call 'conventional' science, the figment developed over
the past millennia upon halfway (maybe less) understood and partially
observed phenomena. - I mean 'THAT' efficient and miraculous technology,
what humanity uses as of yesterday.
The only difference I can see as fundamental to your present post is the
application of the word: * T r u t h * of which you state: 'there is'.
I think: 'there is not'. There is YOUR truth and MY truth and in our
individual mini-solipsism (Colin) certain aspects may match - giving some
sort of communal belief system in scientific terms as well, so a ('partial')
truth has merits, what many may believe. Or: believe IN.
I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and that is the
motor of my research.
Now what is a truth? In my youth I was rather optimistic and define it as a
queen which wins all wars without any army, but taking sometime very long
detours. I asked my father what he thought about truth, and he told me that
truth is what the men fear the most.
As a scientist, I know I can never offer the truth, but only theories, and
reasoning in those theories, and interpretations (model)
Re: Templeton: Faith in Science
Brent, thanks for the enjoyable reading (tennis players? huh?) - I felt that what you wanted to be clear about, was implied JUST LIKE THAT in what I wrote. I wish Bruno the best to get Templeton grants. At least that part of the money would serve useful goals. I am not hung up on Bruno's theos or religion usage, words can be used in any meaning we identify them to be used for. And he is pretty precise in that. John On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: On 2/19/2011 9:17 AM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, let me reply in fragments - your two responses are too comprehensive for one post for me. So for now: T R U T H . *I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and that is the motor of my research.* is IMO very different from your: *Now what is a truth?...* you go on with. All I referred to is a truth (yours or mine etc., from which you emphasized 'mine' only) and that gives a difference what I wanted to point to. In my worldview of only partial knowledge, in an unlimited complexity of everything (beyond our limitations and imagination) your plain 'truth' cannot exist, but everybody is entitled to his or her (personal?) cut-truth to believe (in). I would not argue against your neoneoplatonist (??) truth. Your father was a wise man. I don't think there is much difference between the stance of the two of us in this topic (if we discount your misreading on the exclusivity of 'my truth'). I even tried to 'touch' the SHARED part of all individual solipsisms into a common belief what many misunderstand as a communal knowledge of the world. Beside such shared views everybody has personal aspects - maybe not expressed all the time. The 'accepted' and shared knowledge is the basis of our conventional sciences (math included?). Then Brent interjected: *It isn't faith if it's based on evidence (even if it's wrong).* *(*with - I think - Bruno's addition: *It is faith when you lack proof. You are confusing faith and blind faith.)* Just to be clear, I didn't mean that evidence implied certainty of belief. One never reaches certainty. Yet some beliefs are better than others; some are supported by evidence and others are undermined. You always lack proof in the mathematical sense. Mathematical proofs are contingent. They are of the form, If X and Y andthen Z. Bruno refers to Orwell's 2+2=4, but this is not a fact about the world, it is a fact about our definitions of words. Two players constitute the world's best mixed doubles tennis team. And two players constitute the world's best women's doubles tennis team. If both teams are on court together, how many players are on court? Three. ** ** Brent is close to my position: *there is no evidence*, only excerpts of our restricted (limited) view (knowledge) - the partial topical 'model' of the totality that entered our 'solipsism' so far. The same applies to Bruno's *proof* - it also can be drawn only from our personal and so far acquired 'model' of the topical knowledge we already carry. In view of our steadily increasing information about more and more from the totality (from Copernicus, through Mendel to Watson-Crick, or J.S.Bach and L.DaVinci, etc. etc.) 'old proof' is no 'evidence' at a later stage of increased knowledge. So 'faith' seems discredited - at least not durable. I 'think' this is Brent: *But faith is exactly what religions forbid one to reset.* (Without the 'but') yes, it is essential for the survival of formal religions. To keep the old hearsay alive and within the 'faith' the believers carry. And (I think) Bruno's paragraph compares some theocratic and scientific beliefs in the spirit as I wrote in my essay. We DO believe in tenets of conventional science. Use them as proof, as evidence, base conclusions upon them, construct instruments and measurements (comparison) showing similarities between those details we included into our explanations to give some understanding to phenomena we only partially glimpsed. At our present primitive state we cannot encompass the comp[lexity of 'them all' and the relentless change in which our world - what? - exists? works? stagnates (as in ontology?) or just exceeds our mental capabilities? Finally: A *BIG*, religious(!) -- *A M E N* -- to the 2 statements: *I am certainly a bit anxious about that. But it is not the fault of religion per se that humans pervert the original inquiry. * and: *That is far too generous. Religion is the perversion of inquiry.* (Meaning of course the traditional theocratic ones). And nobody, except Bruno, uses the word religion for the serious, unconstrained inquiry into what's true. Everybody else calls it science or philosophy. But that's why Bruno can easily get a Templeton grant. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send
Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper
*Brent,* *I agree with most of your statements (whatver value this may have...) Let me interject below.* *John M * On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: On 3/6/2011 7:16 AM, 1Z wrote: It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the other theories are too vague, or refuted). Not at all. Objective collapse theories such as GRW have not been refuted, *JM: nor have any such been affirmed, since all of them are based on partial knowledge.* ** and spiritual interpretations, like von Neumann's are the vagues of the lot The most conservative interpretation of QM, closest to Bohr, is that the equations of QM are merely description of what we know about particular systems. *JM: In my words: we know only a part of the totality (= particular systems) and cannot 'think' beyond that. We cannot comprise 'everything'. * ** The equations make stochastic predictions. When we do the experiment, one result of those predicted is realized with the appropriate frequency of occurence. The only collapse is actualization of one of the possibilities in our description. Decoherence theory is a way of modeling when we can expect the actualization to be complete. This has a technical difficulty since the unitary evolution implies that decoherence is never complete but only approached asymptotically. *JM: All that understood within the 'model' we draw of the wholenss, i.e. whatever we know about it as of yesterday. It certainly IS finite. (The last sentence is above my head).* ** However, recent theories of holographic information imply that only finite information can be contained within an event horizon. This would in turn imply there must be a smallest non-zero probability and decoherence actually drives cross-terms in the density matrix to zero. The problem of basis and einselection still remains. Brent *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.
Re: Comp
Andrew and Bruno: (Re: Andrew's discussion below): according to what I pretend to understand of Bruno's position, the math' universe (numbers and what they 'build' as the 'world') is more fundamental than the application we call physics. I wrote more because the real fundamental is based on the rel everything, still hidden from our knowledge and only parts transpire continually (since many millennia ago). We arrived at a stage, different from the one 1000 or 3000 years ago and devised a logic (or more) which is different from those applied earlier. Yet it is not the ultimate - or should I say not all of them. There may be different logical ways in our future development (you may call it evolution, I don't) just as different arithmetics as well of which we state today impossible. So was the spherical Earth or molecular genetics. A problem (in my mind) about compute: does 'computing' include an evaluation of the result automatically, *by the device itself*, or does it need a *thinking mind* to valuate the computation? Does 'comp' *act* upon the result of its own computation? ( H O W ? ) Also the word *automatically* raises the question whether it requires some homunculus(?) - (call it a factor or any presently unknown dynamics?) instigating it for us rather than - or even BUILT IN as - a not-yet discovered intrinsic part of the functionality to be discovered? With my agnosticism (ignorance about the not-yet disclosed parts of the wholeness) it is hard to agree with any proof, truth, or evidence. The most I can do is a potentially possible. John Mikes On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.comwrote: On 07/02/11 15:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp makes precise that saying to be a machine is equivalent with saying that there is a level of functional substitution where my (first person) consciousness is invariant for a substitution made at that level. Comp can show that we can never known our level of substitution, and my reasoning works whatever I mean by my brain (it could be the entire galaxy or the entire observable universe if someone asks for it). CTM is vague on the level, and miss the point that we cannot know it, if it exists. Comp is also much more general than CTM, which relies usually on some amount of neurophilosophy, or on representationalist theory of the mind, and CTM is often criticized by 'externalist', like brent Meeker for example. But comp is not annoyed by externalism, given that it defines the (generalized) brain by the portion of universe you need, like possibly the matrix above. So comp is a very weak, and thus general, hypothesis. And the result is easy to describe: physics is not the fundamental branch. You say And the result is easy to describe: physics is not the fundamental branch.. This is the leap of yours I never understand. Do you posit that a mathematical universe with no physical content somehow automatically computes? Andrew -- 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: causes (was:ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: * Is the causes word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'?* *Onward!* *Stephen* ** Thanks, Stephen, for standing up against the verb 'causes'. In our limited views of the totality (the unlimited complexity of the wholeness) we can only search for factors *contributing* to changes we experience WITHIN the model of our knowledge. If we find such, we are tempted to call it *THE cause - *while many more (from the unknown) may also play in. *Information* is also a tricky term, maybe: knowledge of relations we * (lately?)* acquired in our topical model of yesterday's knowledge, but definitely also WITHIN our knowable model. (Please forgive me for using yesterday's: nobody can think in terms of all the ongoing news of today). ** Best John M * * -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you mean by account for collapse. At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and Omnes for example, is that the collapse is purely epistemological. All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely predicts probabilities for this change. Such epistemological theories need to be carefully distinguished from consciousness causes collapse theories. Right. Epistemological collapse is nothing but a change in information that causes us to change our description. ** Is the causes word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'? 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.
Re: Molecular Motion and Heat, was ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper
Thanks, David, for a reasonable post. I admire Evgeniy for his boldness of a frontal attack against conventional physicality's terms. I would go a step further (is it a surprise?) like: ontology is rather a description of a stagnant knowledge (state? even if dynamic) of *a phase*considered in conventional science - if we consider a continuously changing complexity of everything for* the world* (whatever) - way beyond the limitations of our knowables (i.e. the 'model' we carry about our solipsism: the (world)view based upon the acquired knowables and their explanation at the level we actually reached). In such views atoms and molecules are cute explanations at a primitive level of knowledge for phenomena humanity thought to have observed and tried to understand (explain). So is the Brownian and other 'movement'(?) applied in the terms of 'heat' (not really) of those marvels. Since 'movement' is the relationship between our poorly understood terms of space and time the uncertainty is no surprise. Your last sentence may be a connotation to all that 'stuff' of everything' - outside of the so far acquired knowables, yet in the indivisible wholeness-complexity duly influencing whatever comes as 'knowable' within our model. (This - the so far unknown, but seeping gradually into our ssolipsism of yesterday - yet affecting the observed *model-behavior* serves my agnosticism, the uncertainty, the fact that our (conventional) sciences are* ALMOST* OK. Meaning: we may be proud of our knowledge and skills, but technological failures, evaluational mishaps, sicknesses, societal malaise and unexpected catastrophes etc. still occur.) To Evgeniy's train of thought I would attach another question (what you, savants of Q-science may answer easily): if the universe expands (does it, indeed?) do the interstitial spaces in an atom expand similarly, or they are exempt and stay put? If they expand, a recalculation of the entire (Q?)physics and cosmology would be in order G. If they don't, there must be some Big Bang initial volume - not a zero-point start-up, unless that ridiculous 'inflation-theory' works to save the evening. I like fairy tales. Spilberg may get a physical Nobel. The idea is not new: Lenin said that the large increase in quantity turns into a change in quality. Regards John M On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:08 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 March 2011 19:22, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: So I personally not that sure that molecular motion has more meaning *ontologically* than heat. Actually, I agree with you. Of course whatever we can speak or theorise about is, strictly, entirely epistemological and consequently those aspects we label ontological are properly a subset of the theory of knowledge. And of course even in these terms it isn't clear that the physical is simply reducible to independently existing fundamental entities and their relations. Even though I was attempting to pursue some rather obvious consequences of the idea that reality might be so reducible, I accept that the relation between what we know and what may ultimately ground such knowledge is doubtless altogether more complex, subtle and opaque. David When you compare heat and molecular motion, first it would be good to define what molecular motion is. At the beginning, the molecules and atoms were considered as hard spheres. At this state, there was the problem as follows. We bring a glass of hot water in the room and leave it there. Eventually the temperature of the water will be equal to the ambient temperature. According to the heat theory, the temperature in the glass will be hot again spontaneously and it is in complete agreement with our experience. With molecular motion, if we consider them as hard spheres there is a nonzero chance that the water in the glass will be hot again. Moreover, there is a theorem (Poincaré recurrence) that states that if we wait long enough then the temperature of the glass must be hot again. No doubt, the chances are very small and time to wait is very long, in a way this is negligible. Yet some people are happy with such statistical explanation, some not. Hence, it is a bit too simple to say that molecular motion has eliminated heat at this level. Then we could say that molecules and atoms are not hard spheres but quantum objects. This however brings even more problems, as we do not have macroscopic objects then. Let me quote Laughlin to this end By the most important effect of phase organisation is to cause objects to exist. This point is subtle and easily overlooked, since we are accustomed to thinking about solidification in terms of packing of Newtonian spheres. Atoms are not Newtonian spheres, however, but ethereal quantum-mechanical entities lacking that most central of all properties of an object – an identifiable position. This is why attempts to describe free atoms in
Complete Thepry of Everything
*In my opinion an oxymoron*. We cannot even 'think' of it without a *complete* knowledge of everything, the *entire wholeness*, call it 'totality' *underlying such 'th*eory'. All possible anything, (algorithms, descriptions, assumptions, whatever) - encompass only those 'possibilities' we can think of in the volume of our acquired knowledge (of yesterday). Even (our?) 'impossibilities' are impossible within such framework. We cannot step out from our circle of knowledge into the unlimited *unknown*world. Any comp we can identify (or even just 'speak' about) is within our world of known items and their relations. Includable into our ongoing mindset. Compare such framework of yesterday with a similar assumption of 1000, or 3000 years ago and the inductive development will be obvious. There is no way we could include the presently (still?) unknown (but maybe tomorrow learnable) details of the world (including maybe new logical ways, math, phenomenological domains, etc.) into our today's worldview of all possible. [Forget about sci-fi] Maybe even the ways of composing 'our' items (topics, factors, relations and even 'numbers') is a restricted limitational view in the 'model' representing the present level of our development - of which conventional sciences form a part. Comparing e.g. the caveman-views with Greek mythology and with modern 'scientific' futurism (like some on this list) supports this opinion. So I would be cautious to use the qualifier 'COMPLETE'. 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: Complete Thepry of Everything
from: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
to: everything-list@googlegroups.com toeverything-l...@googlegroups.com
date: Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM
subject: Complete *Thepry* of Everything - - *Now* corrected:* Theory...
*mailed-by gmail.com http://mailed-bygmail.com/
---
('thermo')---XD:
Sorry for the typo: p and 'o' are too close NOT to mix them
up occasionally. I didn't want to repeat those mile-long recent posts
on *Complete
Theory of Everything* as automatically added to my remark in continuing
list-post, hence the 'new post' in the topic. I thought the text made it
obvious. I should have typed in the 'proper' title before the 'in medias
res' shorthand. .
I would have appreciated some more reasonable replies as well.
John Mikes
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
*In my opinion an oxymoron*.
We cannot even 'think' of it without a *complete* knowledge of everything,
the *entire wholeness*, call it 'totality' *underlying such 'th*eory'.
All possible anything, (algorithms, descriptions, assumptions, whatever)
- encompass only those 'possibilities' we can think of
in the volume of our acquired knowledge (of yesterday). Even (our?)
'impossibilities' are impossible within such framework.
We cannot step out from our circle of knowledge into the unlimited *
unknown* world. Any comp we can identify (or even just 'speak' about) is
within our world of known items and their relations. Includable into our
ongoing mindset.
Compare such framework of yesterday with a similar assumption of 1000, or
3000 years ago and the inductive development will be
obvious.
There is no way we could include the presently (still?) unknown (but maybe
tomorrow learnable) details of the world (including maybe new logical ways,
math, phenomenological domains, etc.) into our today's worldview of all
possible. [Forget about sci-fi]
Maybe even the ways of composing 'our' items (topics, factors, relations
and even 'numbers') is a restricted limitational view in the
'model' representing the present level of our development - of which
conventional sciences form a part.
Comparing e.g. the caveman-views with Greek mythology and with modern
'scientific' futurism (like some on this list) supports this opinion. So I
would be cautious to use the qualifier 'COMPLETE'.
John Mikes
*thermo* to everything-list,
I though you were proposing The Complete Therapy for Everyone, It was just
a typo... XD
--
--
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: Complete Theory of Everything
Hi, Bruno and my warm thanks for your friendly explanations. I need time to chew into them and find out how we indeed can think beyond the capabilities of our knowledge - our mind. This pertains to the great minds (Church to Marchal as well). All I read in my first glance was 'thoughts in human terms' done by existing human minds and suppositions about 'other' minds that may think more. I have to get to terms with the idea that a 'humanly' identified theory (may include Babage whom I appreciate a lot) can extend into items (I evade: 'topics') never heard of so far and into relations of such. To terms that the world as we think of today (that includes the recent - advanced - views as well) is a primitive, limited model of some poorly undestood information we received so far and formulated into our conventional sciences, even advanced worldviews. Human logic is just that: human. 2+2 = 4 is how the human mind can accept math. In terms of the 'unlimited', our quantities, even numbers (pardon me for the attack) are humanly formed entities and the substrates in the endless totality (everything?) may not justify them once we take a differently centered view. Who can pretend to know (including computations) what may be going on in differently composed universes, what forces (if any) and changes (if any) may occur and what conclusions may be drawn - without knowing - in unknown substrates? IF there ARE substrates at all? - (not only in our simplifying translation?) Topics may not be in an unlinmited interconnectedness of them all, unless WE assign our interest and it's known relations into restrictions into 'topical' models. So please, give me some time to let my mind 'sink into' your positional writing - and MAYBE to re-evaluate my ideas. With thanks John Mikes PS. A silly question: would it have been possible to establish conputation before the 'new' knowledge of the zero was acquired? If the answer is NO, let me imagine that 'other' (like the zero-like importance) novelties will come up later on and change ways how we all think. J On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, In computer science there is something interesting which can be seen as a critics or as a vindication of what you are saying. That thing is the Church thesis, also called Church-Turing thesis, (CT) and which has been proposed independently by Babbage (I have evidence for that), Emil Post (the first if we forget Babbage), Kleene, Turing, Markov, but not by Church (actually). The thesis has many versions. One version is that ALL computable functions can be defined in term of lambda expressions, or in term of Turing machines, or in term of Markov algorithm, or in term of Post production system, etc. All those versions are provably equivalent. Such a thesis *seems* to be in opposition with your idea that complete knowledge is impossible. But it is not. The contrary happens. Indeed the thesis concerns only completeness with respect to computability, and then, as I have already explain on this list, it entails the incompleteness of any effective knowability concerning just the world of what machines can do. Church thesis makes it impossible to find *any* complete theory about the behavior of machines. I explain this in the first footnote of the Plotinus' paper. I can explain if someone ask more. It is proved by a typical use of the (Cantor) diagonalization procedure. It vindicates what you say, really. We can sum up this by Completeness with respect of computability provably entails a strong form of incompleteness for our means of knowability and provability about machines' possible behavior. This can be proved rigorously in few lines. It is stronger and easier than Gödel's incompleteness, and it entails Gödel's incompleteness once we can show that the propositions on the computable function can be translated into arithmetical propositions (the lengthy tedious part of Gödel's proof). Not only Church thesis makes it possible to think about 'everything', but it makes us able to prove our (machine's) limitation about the knowledge about that everything. In any case, this makes us modest, because either CT is wrong and we are incomplete for computability, or CT is true and we are incomplete about our knowledge about computability, machines, and numbers. Best, Bruno On 16 Mar 2011, at 17:10, John Mikes wrote: In my opinion an oxymoron. We cannot even 'think' of it without a complete knowledge of everything, the entire wholeness, call it 'totality' underlying such 'theory'. All possible anything, (algorithms, descriptions, assumptions, whatever) - encompass only those 'possibilities' we can think of in the volume of our acquired knowledge (of yesterday). Even (our?) 'impossibilities' are impossible within such framework. We cannot step out from our circle of knowledge into the unlimited unknown world. Any comp we can identify (or even just 'speak
Re: Complete Theory of Everything
Bruno and Brent: machines either 'real' numbers' or not, they are humanly devised, even if we state not to be able to 'understand' them. I want to venture into domains where our 'human ways cannot apply e.g. (silly even to attempt to give an examples on whatever we are not capable to knowing) if all the 'topics' we think in, are abstractions from the inter-flowing totality in our attempt to make 'thinkable' models for ourselves. In such case whatever (!) we speak about is unreal. Is CT (Goedel?) etc. applicable to the interlacing unlimited net of networks without distinguishable individual topics in a complexity of the totality? How about solving an equation with unlimited variables? Is it 'real' or unreal? Can we - oops: the machine(s) - compute 'infinitiy'? Are 'numbers' limited, or unlimited? In that case how much is infinity minus 1? (and please, do not quote Cantor - he felt free to apply any number of qualitatively different infinities - I seek the limit to 'real'). Another silly question (apologies to Bruno, if it is my forgetfulness): how can we get into the between II to III if we have only I to work with? (Or between I(9) to II(10) etc.).? Is the number-based world discontinuous? In what way? OUR human way? I like the image of a limitless, continuous complexity of everything in dynamic inter influencing (meaning: un-ceased change) and this does not 'like' discontinua. (Still thinking about understanding Bruno's reply to my recent post ) John On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/18/2011 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, In computer science there is something interesting which can be seen as a critics or as a vindication of what you are saying. That thing is the Church thesis, also called Church-Turing thesis, (CT) and which has been proposed independently by Babbage (I have evidence for that), Emil Post (the first if we forget Babbage), Kleene, Turing, Markov, but not by Church (actually). The thesis has many versions. One version is that ALL computable functions can be defined in term of lambda expressions, or in term of Turing machines, or in term of Markov algorithm, or in term of Post production system, etc. All those versions are provably equivalent. Such a thesis **seems** to be in opposition with your idea that complete knowledge is impossible. But it is not. The contrary happens. Indeed the thesis concerns only completeness with respect to computability, and then, as I have already explain on this list, it entails the incompleteness of any effective knowability concerning just the world of what machines can do. By machines here I assume you mean digital machines/computers. I think this doesn't apply to machines described by real numbers. But of course we think it is unlikely that real number machines exist and that the reals are just a convenient fiction for dealing with arbitrarily fine divisions of rationals. But there can be a cardinality between the integers and the reals. I wonder what this implies about computability? Brent Church thesis makes it impossible to find **any** complete theory about the behavior of machines. I explain this in the first footnote of the Plotinus' paper. I can explain if someone ask more. It is proved by a typical use of the (Cantor) diagonalization procedure. It vindicates what you say, really. We can sum up this by Completeness with respect of computability provably entails a strong form of incompleteness for our means of knowability and provability about machines' possible behavior. This can be proved rigorously in few lines. It is stronger and easier than Gödel's incompleteness, and it entails Gödel's incompleteness once we can show that the propositions on the computable function can be translated into arithmetical propositions (the lengthy tedious part of Gödel's proof). Not only Church thesis makes it possible to think about 'everything', but it makes us able to prove our (machine's) limitation about the knowledge about that everything. In any case, this makes us modest, because either CT is wrong and we are incomplete for computability, or CT is true and we are incomplete about our knowledge about computability, machines, and numbers. Best, 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
Re: Is QTI false?
Nick, the rewinding of the aging process is tricky. Now I am diverting from my lately absorbed worldview of an unlimited complexity of everything of which we (humans) can acknowledge only a part and build from that our 'mini-solipsism' (after Colin H) - matching in *part* with many humans, by which I lost faith in the figment of a physical world - incl. atoms (molecules?) after 1/2 c. of chemistry. Returning to the *conventional terms*: *aging* includes un-equilibratable changes, with ingredients within and without the organism so a *return *has the same difficulties as religion has in the *'resurrection of all'*. Partial retrospect may occur e.g. in the memory sense. What comp(?) could do is beyond me, we have very scant imagination about a *universal computer* (way above the capabilities humans can muster and master). We also have very scant imagination about circumstances leading to our term: *TIME * so the topic is ready for a dissertation of *'Alice'.* (I don't want even to mention (?) my denial for* 'statistical' and 'probability'* - both - provided by arbitrary limitations - lacking the 'time' factor, hence useless in most cases they are applied in.) The 500 year old *you* is ambiguous: it is not only the brain - the tool we use in our mentality (what is it?) - that ages, but also the very organs of the other tool in our complex living contraption so I would refuse to prognosticate changes in the life-process (if there is such) with 500 years changes of tissues, chemical machines (glands, sensors, potentials and flexibility etc.) bodily coordination and mental compliance in the physiological processes. Good game, anyway. Best regards John Mikes On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno wrote With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being very old to being a baby. We can may be get slowly younger and younger in a more continuous way, by little backtracking. We always survive in the most normal world compatible with our states. But some kind of jumps are not excluded. Hi Bruno Maybe what I am trying to say is that very old or dying brains might deterorate in a specific way that allows the transition from an old to a young mind i.e. the decaying brain becomes in some way homomorphic to a young brain. Indeed this defines the consciousness I am considering and is therefore subtrate dependent. If all of physics can be simulated on a computer then no problem. If you accept the classical theory of knowledge, it is easy. Computer are already conscious. They have not the tools to manifest their consciousness, and by programming them, we don't help them with that respect. Consciousness is not programmable. It exists in Platonia, and a universal machine is only a sort of interface between different levels of the Platonic reality (arithmetical truth). This is an interesting comment! Are you saying that everything including consciousness really emanates from platonia? Would you agree that we exist eternally in platonia? If so then perhaps we need only consider computationalism /QM as a means of comprehending the steps to this understanding. This platonic realm is very useful but hard to pin down as a concept. Best Nick -- 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.
1P-causality
The exchange between SPK and Bruno is hard to personalize, there is am unmarked paragraph after a par marked ... so I was in doubt whether it is Bruno, or Stephen who wrote: *His use of the word causation is unfortunate but we can forgive him because there is no correct word for the relation that he is considering. * ** Both mathematical and philosophical causation is partial: all we can consider as instigating a 'change' (= cause?) may only come from the part of the totality we already know of and include into that partivular model used in our consideration, while the influences of the still unknown factors are included (active?) as well (not to mention those known ones we neglected in our limited thinking). In precise thinking such uncertainty interferes with applying 'correct' vocabulary. 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: 1P-causality
Thanks, Brent, - however: I did not restrict myself to physics (lest: 'fundamental') and had a shorthand-typo in my text: - - - (=cause) - - - which indeed means: a change, effected by - what we call: a cause. I was referring to our (conventional) system looking only inside the 'model' of already knowable knowledge, even those applied only as needed to identify cause - or effect. The unknown 'rest of the world' also influences those changes we may experience within our model so our consclusions are incomplete. That does not apply to a universal machine which 'knows it all' - but we indeed have no idea how it works and what it may conclude. Deduced in my common sense of agnostic ignorance. John On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2011 2:06 PM, John Mikes wrote: The exchange between SPK and Bruno is hard to personalize, there is am unmarked paragraph after a par marked ... so I was in doubt whether it is Bruno, or Stephen who wrote: *His use of the word causation is unfortunate but we can forgive him because there is no correct word for the relation that he is considering. * ** Both mathematical and philosophical causation is partial: all we can consider as instigating a 'change' (= cause?) may only come from the part of the totality we already know of and include into that partivular model used in our consideration, while the influences of the still unknown factors are included (active?) as well (not to mention those known ones we neglected in our limited thinking). In precise thinking such uncertainty interferes with applying 'correct' vocabulary. John M In fundamental physics where evolution is time-symmetric, the distinction between cause and effect is just an arbitrary choice. In more practical terms cause usually refers to some part of a process we could chose to control. If a cable breaks and drops something, we say the accident was caused by cable failure - because what we think we could have done to prevent the accident is use a better cable. We don't say gravity caused it because we can't turn off gravity. 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: 1P-causality
Hello, Bruno, and thanks for your reply. I am sorry for an interjected remark-sentence quite out of context in a topic it does not belong at all. Especially since it was mal-chosen and mal-formulated. I enjoyed your teaching about the UM etc., I could use it. I am presently mentally anchored in my own ignorance (i.e. my agnosticism-based worldview formulation) of a 2011 level stance. Best regards John On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, I indulge myself in a slight correction on a statement, that you were just doing for a second time, despite I thought having already insisted on the point. I am sorry because it is not completely in the topic: On 07 Apr 2011, at 17:42, John Mikes wrote: Thanks, Brent, - however: I did not restrict myself to physics (lest: 'fundamental') and had a shorthand-typo in my text: - - - (=cause) - - - which indeed means: a change, effected by - what we call: a cause. I was referring to our (conventional) system looking only inside the 'model' of already knowable knowledge, even those applied only as needed to identify cause - or effect. The unknown 'rest of the world' also influences those changes we may experience within our model so our consclusions are incomplete. That does not apply to a universal machine which 'knows it all' - Universal machine knows about nothing. They are universal with respect to computability, or emulability, or simulability. Not on provability, believability or knowability. Typically all humans being are universal machines. I can argue that bacteria are already universal machine. The UMs know about nothing, but they can become wise, that is Löbian. This is when they realize that they are universal (in some sense which I can make precise) in that case, they still know about nothing, but they know that they know nothing, and they can know why it is necessary that they know nothing. They also know that if they develop knowledge, their ignorance-space will grow even more, so that by learning, they can only be proportionnally more ignorant. that is why they become extremely modest. In the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus hypostases, the universal machine is the arithmetical correspondent of man. God is arithmetical truth, and for Him/It/Her there is a sense to say that He/It/her knows everything, but It is far beyond what *any* machine can grasp. Machines cannot even give It a name, unless they assume that they are machine, in which case the label Truth can indirectly be applied. Universal machine are more like universal baby than omniscient knower. With the Church-Turing Thesis, your laptop *is* a universal machine. The universal Turing machine is universal. All computer's are. And I can argue that all living cells are universal. Bruno but we indeed have no idea how it works and what it may conclude. Deduced in my common sense of agnostic ignorance. John On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2011 2:06 PM, John Mikes wrote: The exchange between SPK and Bruno is hard to personalize, there is am unmarked paragraph after a par marked ... so I was in doubt whether it is Bruno, or Stephen who wrote: *His use of the word causation is unfortunate but we can forgive him because there is no correct word for the relation that he is considering. * ** Both mathematical and philosophical causation is partial: all we can consider as instigating a 'change' (= cause?) may only come from the part of the totality we already know of and include into that partivular model used in our consideration, while the influences of the still unknown factors are included (active?) as well (not to mention those known ones we neglected in our limited thinking). In precise thinking such uncertainty interferes with applying 'correct' vocabulary. John M In fundamental physics where evolution is time-symmetric, the distinction between cause and effect is just an arbitrary choice. In more practical terms cause usually refers to some part of a process we could chose to control. If a cable breaks and drops something, we say the accident was caused by cable failure - because what we think we could have done to prevent the accident is use a better cable. We don't say gravity caused it because we can't turn off gravity. 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
Re: [OT] Love and free will
Rex, Evgeniy and List: Are we speaking about a mysterious 'free will' that is unrelated to the rest of the world and depends only how we like it? In my view our 'likings' and 'not' depend on the concerning experience and genetic built in our mentality (whatever THAT is composed of) in limitations of the perceived reality - the basis for our mini-solipsism. We cannot slip out of our shoes and 'like' something unrelated - or, horribile dictu: opposing the stuff that penetrated our mindset. The idea of a Free Will was a good intimidating factor for religious punishment of sins, means to ensure the rule of the church over the gullible. Or for the courts in fault-finding. We are 'rpoducts' of the world around us, not independent 'gods' (Bruno's word). Beyond that I find the topic kin to 'consciousness', an unidentified bunch of characteristics what every researcher composes into a blurb according to his needs in serving his theory. Some choose copmponents that are identifiable in physics, others in theocratic religions. We exercise a decisionmaking 'will' that is a product of the 'mini' everything we are under the influences of. But free it is not. John M On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 15.04.2011 21:16 Rex Allen said the following: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. Rewarding bad behavior will get you more bad behavior - but this is a consequence of human nature, and has nothing to do with free will. Even if we take a purely deterministic, mechanistic view of human nature, the question remains: What works best in promoting a well-ordered society? Society, in that crime is only an issue when you have more than one person involved. Is more criminal behavior due to correctable conditions that can be alleviated through education programs or by a more optimal distribution of the wealth that is generated by society as a whole? In other words, can criminal behavior be minimized proactively? Or is most criminal behavior an unavoidable consequence of human nature, and thus deterrence by threat of punishment is the most effective means of minimizing that behavior? In other words, can criminal behavior only be addressed reactively? The question is: As a practical matter, what works best? What results in the greatest good for the greatest number? Whatever it is, I vote we do that. It seems that your question As a practical matter, what works best? implies that there is still some choice. Could you please comment on how such a questions corresponds to your position in respect on free will? That I don’t believe in free will doesn’t imply that I shouldn't act. It just means that I don’t believe that I am the ultimate author of my actions. A welding robot in a car factory has no free will, and yet it goes about it’s business anyway. Free will is not required for action. If the robot reacts to sensor input, it’s reactions don't require free will in order to explain. And neither do my actions and reactions require free will to explain. Determinism, randomness, or some mixture of the two are sufficient for explanation. But even without free will, I still have things that I want. And if I want to do something and I’m able to do it, then I will do it. If I don’t want to do something, then I won’t. Determinism doesn’t change this...it just states that I don’t *freely choose* what I want or how I act on those wants. What ultimately matters to me is the quality of my experiences. And I act accordingly. When my head hurts, I take aspirin. But a robot could be programmed to make that same kind of “choice”: if damage detected, then activate repair routines. It's not indicative of free will. Returning to your original question - I want to live in a well ordered society, and I act accordingly...by voting that we focus on pragmatic solutions, and by advising against muddying the water with nonsensical concepts like free will and moral responsibility that come with compatibilism. Why do I want to live in a well ordered society, and why do I feel that the approach mentioned above is the best way to achieve that goal? Why does it matter to me? Well...to the extent that this isn't determined by the causal structure of reality, it's random. But it still matters to me, even though I recognize that it doesn't matter in any other sense. And this subjective meaning is enough. The libertarians and compatibilists are focused on the wrong thing. It’s not the choices that matter...it’s the experience. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group,
Re: Love and Free Will
*Brent wrote:* ** *I would point out that indeterminism can have two different sources. One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets amplified to quasi-classical action. The other, much more common, is the unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that influences one through perception. I don't think this affects the above analysis except to qualify the idea that external indeterminism is justly considered enslavement*. An enlightened Hungarian king wrote a royal order in the 13th c. (King Coloman, the bookworm) De Strigiis quae non sunt... i.e. About the sorcerers that do NOT exist... - yet 1/2 millennium later they still burnt witches the World over. So is it with the ominous Fre-Will, and many more atavistically developed meme-stuff. Especially in the theocratic religion chapters, but conventional science not exempted either. As much as I like Brent's remark, I point out the (conventional science) figment of the Physical World and its domains like a 'quantum random event' - which would make all our 'ordered' world (view) irrelevant and haphazardously changing, instead of following those 'oganized' physics- (and other scientific)- rules we 'beleive in and apply. Even Brent's quasi-classical action is part of our scientific figment. Those possibly deterministic EXTERNAL events are within our 'model' of the so far known part we carry (in pesonalized adjustment) in our 'mind' - outside that SELF in our mini-solipsism. Part of our *perceived reality.* I like* * *the unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic)*' distinction as pointing to the influences upon (our known) topics WITHIN the limited model of our perceived reality by the 'beyond model' infinite complexity of the everything. We have no way to learn what that infinite rest of the world may be, yet it influences the part we got access to so it is deterministic in our indeterministic - unpredictable world. Enslavement is a term I would be careful to use in such discussion because of its historic - societal general meaning. We - in my opinion - are not slaves in the unlimited everything: we are part of it.Embedded into and influenced by all of it. We just do not see beyond our limitations - my agnosticism. -- 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: Love and Free Will
IZ wrote: *Even stochastic rules? Science can easily explain how the appearance of order emerges from randomness*. 'Stochastic is no more than not assignable to our KNOWN rules of choice. This is a natural outcome within the view I discribed. And the 'order' tha '*emerges'* from randomness? maybe it is only a mathematical formula - just describing the experience, *or *- by additional input - the missing part that 'made' the randomness in the first place, dissipates by our knowledge being expanded (enriched). I appreciate ONE true randomness (in math): Take ANY number... (puzzles). On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: *Brent wrote:* ** *I would point out that indeterminism can have two different sources. One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets amplified to quasi-classical action. The other, much more common, is the unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that influences one through perception. I don't think this affects the above analysis except to qualify the idea that external indeterminism is justly considered enslavement*. An enlightened Hungarian king wrote a royal order in the 13th c. (King Coloman, the bookworm) De Strigiis quae non sunt... i.e. About the sorcerers that do NOT exist... - yet 1/2 millennium later they still burnt witches the World over. So is it with the ominous Fre-Will, and many more atavistically developed meme-stuff. Especially in the theocratic religion chapters, but conventional science not exempted either. As much as I like Brent's remark, I point out the (conventional science) figment of the Physical World and its domains like a 'quantum random event' - which would make all our 'ordered' world (view) irrelevant and haphazardously changing, instead of following those 'oganized' physics- (and other scientific)- rules we 'beleive in and apply. Even stochastic rules? Science can easily explain how the appearance of order emerges from randomness. Even Brent's quasi-classical action is part of our scientific figment. Those possibly deterministic EXTERNAL events are within our 'model' of the so far known part we carry (in pesonalized adjustment) in our 'mind' - outside that SELF in our mini-solipsism. Part of our *perceived reality.* I like* * *the unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic)*' distinction as pointing to the influences upon (our known) topics WITHIN the limited model of our perceived reality by the 'beyond model' infinite complexity of the everything. We have no way to learn what that infinite rest of the world may be, yet it influences the part we got access to so it is deterministic in our indeterministic - unpredictable world. Enslavement is a term I would be careful to use in such discussion because of its historic - societal general meaning. We - in my opinion - are not slaves in the unlimited everything: we are part of it.Embedded into and influenced by all of it. We just do not see beyond our limitations - my agnosticism. -- 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: Love and Free Will
Peter, if we 'free-up' our minds to think wider than our conventional sciences based 'unconventionality' (as applied on this list frequently) and recognize the unlimited Everything in the complexity of the wholeness we end up in (my?) agnosticism: We know only part of the total, visualize WITHIN our mind-restricted imaging and formulate 'models' of the already known world (already: because it widened by newer input historically as we 'learn'). The totality's inter influenceing results in changing relations - partly followable - acknowledged by the part of our 'then' knowledge. In such view Random is I don't know, Chaos is: I don't know and stochastic is sort of a random. What conventional science does is a compromise into the almost: our technology is almost perfect, some planes fall off from the sky, some sicknesses/wars break out, some genetic mishaps occur, some theories fail, etc. etc. Compromising means to invent cute factors that enhance a match (at least mathematically) in cases of trouble. Presumptions make assumptions and vice versa, in endless series and at the end it is believed as a fact. Deterministic? there is SOME order that keeps the world churning, applying ALL relational changes in the wholeness including ALL ingredients of the Everything. We don't know what are such 'ingredients' only the imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our limited knowledge. We don't know what kind of alterations the relations in the unlimited totality may undergo, we only experience SOME and interpret them within our figment (physical world). Presumably - and now I use this word as well G - there is an order in the wholeness and this encompasses all the totality in the alterations of the relationships - so I feel justified to use the word 'deterministic'. Not to understand it, though. In limbo - you say: be my guest. We cannot overstep our capabilities and think only within our models. By human logic, which has no claim to be the general characteristic of nature (the totality). We think human. Me, too. A bit stepping further seems to be allowed in 'anticipation' what I just study how to get to it, on the bases of Robert Rosen and Mihai Nadin. I am not there yet. Rules, mathematical formula, quantum science, physics, other conventional sciences: all figments of the human mind how to explain the partial phenomena we 'accepted' over the time of our existence here on Earth. One more obstacle: users of different vocabularies cannot effectively argue with each other, the meaning of the words is different. Bruno has a vocabulary, conventional sciences use another one, my concepts are differently identified, religions have their own versions, every one understands arguments within their own vocabulary - the rest is 'stupid'. Regards John n Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:33 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Apr 20, 8:53 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: IZ wrote: *Even stochastic rules? Science can easily explain how the appearance of order emerges from randomness*. 'Stochastic is no more than not assignable to our KNOWN rules of choice. It's still rules. If there are no known rules BECAUSE the actual rules out there are not deterministic, science can still function with the sort of rules it still functions with. In you previous comment, ou sounded like you were deriving the conclusion everything is deterministic from the premise science works on rules, and that does not in fact follow. Now you seem to be deriving everything is deterministic from itself. This is a natural outcome within the view I discribed. And the 'order' tha '*emerges'* from randomness? maybe it is only a mathematical formula - just describing the experience, Maybe a deterministic law is just a mathematical formula. The point is whether we should have respect for the fact that these things work, and whether we should do so in a biased or an even-handed way. The determinist is impressed by Newton's deterministic laws,and happy to reify them, but not by the Law of Large Numbers, which shows how apparent order can emerge from chaos. Yet both work. So it looks like the determinist is running on bias. *or *- by additional input - the missing part that 'made' the randomness in the first place, dissipates by our knowledge being expanded (enriched). I appreciate ONE true randomness (in math): Take ANY number... (puzzles). On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: *Brent wrote:* ** *I would point out that indeterminism can have two different sources. One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets amplified to quasi-classical action. The other, much more common, is the unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that influences one through perception. I don't think this affects the above analysis except to qualify the idea
Re: Love and Free Will
Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply): * (JM):...In such view Random is I don't know, Chaos is: I don't know andstochastic is sort of a random. ...* *BM: Not necessarily. Why not free-up your mind to think wider and include the thought that some randomness may be intrinsic, not the result of ignorance of some deeper level? * ** Please consider first my - * 'in such view' * - furthermore may I remind you of all those natural law based (physical and other) conventional scientific tenets that (in our science) we can and do rely on? No haphazardly emerging counter-facts disturb the scientific picture by a 'random' input of the unexpect/ed/able. I am not an expert in 'random': my mother tongue (not Indo-European) does not include such term (word) - we used earlier: the 'exbeliebig' translated (from Latino-German: as 'liked'). Now even in this language they apply the word RANDOM because 'we may not LIKE itG. Russell S - if I remember well - spoke about some 'small?' random, identified within a topic - please correct me if I am wrong. I am talking about the absolute? random, having no math - or natural limitations. Like: 'out of a blue'. *BM: But we do know that the intrinsic randomness of QM is consistent with all our current knowledge. So to assert that the world is deterministic is only presumption. *Brent, your slip is showing: *all our current knowledge* is restricted to our present conventional sciences based on what I call * JM: ...imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our limited knowledge. * I would call QM a brilliant adage within our *present model-view* *(the physical world figment*). And YES, I agree that deterministic is a presumption. (So far it did not pop off from my image). Agnosticism can take it With my (yes, I am human) logic I need some rules instead of the total 'randomness' we happen to live in. Some origin - beyond my present knowledge-based imagination - and some course of the Everything - who knows where? - at a certain point of which we 'exist' and view the World as well as our capabilities allow. John M On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/22/2011 1:23 PM, John Mikes wrote: Peter, if we 'free-up' our minds to think wider than our conventional sciences based 'unconventionality' (as applied on this list frequently) and recognize the unlimited Everything in the complexity of the wholeness we end up in (my?) agnosticism: We know only part of the total, visualize WITHIN our mind-restricted imaging and formulate 'models' of the already known world (already: because it widened by newer input historically as we 'learn'). The totality's inter influenceing results in changing relations - partly followable - acknowledged by the part of our 'then' knowledge. In such view Random is I don't know, Chaos is: I don't know and stochastic is sort of a random. Not necessarily. Why not free-up your mind to think wider and include the thought that some randomness may be intrinsic, not the result of ignorance of some deeper level? What conventional science does is a compromise into the almost: our technology is almost perfect, some planes fall off from the sky, some sicknesses/wars break out, some genetic mishaps occur, some theories fail, etc. etc. Compromising means to invent cute factors that enhance a match (at least mathematically) in cases of trouble. Presumptions make assumptions and vice versa, in endless series and at the end it is believed as a fact. Deterministic? there is SOME order that keeps the world churning, applying ALL relational changes in the wholeness including ALL ingredients of the Everything. We don't know what are such 'ingredients' only the imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our limited knowledge. But we do know that the intrinsic randomness of QM is consistent with all our current knowledge. So to assert that the world is deterministic is only presumption. Brent We don't know what kind of alterations the relations in the unlimited totality may undergo, we only experience SOME and interpret them within our figment (physical world). Presumably - and now I use this word as well G - there is an order in the wholeness and this encompasses all the totality in the alterations of the relationships - so I feel justified to use the word 'deterministic'. Not to understand it, though. In limbo - you say: be my guest. We cannot overstep our capabilities and think only within our models. By human logic, which has no claim to be the general characteristic of nature (the totality). We think human. Me, too. A bit stepping further seems to be allowed in 'anticipation' what I just study how to get to it, on the bases of Robert Rosen and Mihai Nadin. I am not there yet. Rules, mathematical formula, quantum science, physics, other conventional sciences: all figments of the human mind how to explain the partial phenomena we
Re: Love and Free Will
Dear Bruno, allow me to interject some remarks (questions?) indented and starting (JM): John On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Apr 2011, at 13:10, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno said, If not you would give to consciousness the ability to suppress branches in the quantum multiverse (like with the wave collapse), Exactly what I am asking. Is this a possibility? It is a logical possibility. But it is inconsistent with the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science, or with the idea that QM is a universal theory. *(JM): how about that computationalist hypothesis being false and QM being-NOT- a universal theory?* The collapse of the wave has been defended during almost one century and nobody can explain it. The observer can no more be described by quantum mechanics, nor by digital mechanism. * (JM): so be it. Is there a 'collapse' of a function? is an 'observer' reaistic as thought?* But it is not a logical contradiction. It is just not plausible, a bit like the idea that God made the creation in six days some millennia ago. We can't contradict such a statement, but it necessitates a very complex theory with many corrective principles which will be seen as ad hoc. *(JM): how were the SIX DAYS measured before OUR time-frame was 'created???* In science we never know-for-sure the truth. There are no certainties. *(JM): conventional science, that is. We cannot speak for the future*. With computationalism we have a quasi complete explanation of consciousness, capable of justifying completely its own incompleteness, and a complete explanation (although not yet completed, to be sure) of the origin of the appearance of physical reality (both the quanta and the qualia). To allow consciousness to make the other branches, or the other computations disappearing, seems to me a bit like making a problem much more complex for unclear reason. But comp might be false, that is a possibility. Indeed, if comp is true, it has to be a possibility. Comp, like consistency in arithmetic entails the possibility of its refutation, and should never been taken as an axiom, just a meta-axiom, or an act of faith. If not, we become inconsistent. * (JM): thanks, Bruno, for the wisdom.* My point here is just to explain that IF comp (DM) is true, THEN physics is a branch of machine's psychology/theology/biology. I don't pretend this is obvious. I do find comp plausible from the currently available data. Both comp, the hypothesis, but also through its multiverse/multidream consequences. Bruno *(John)* Richard On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On 26 Apr 2011, at 16:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, If DM results in a cosmic consciousness that can make choices, could not it choose to select a single world from the many possible worlds? Richard Ruquist Suppose that you are read (scanned) at Brussels, and reconstituted in W and M. Your consciousness will select W, in W, and will select M, in M. Both happenings will happen, if I can say. You can decompose a choice of going to M into such a duplication + killing yourself in W, or better: disallowing the reconstitution to be done in W. Likewise, you can choose to go to M, by deciding to not take a plane for W, nor for any other places. That is why a choice is possible in the MW, through a notion of normal world (or most probable relative world) that you can influence by the usual determinist means. If not you would give to consciousness the ability to suppress branches in the quantum multiverse (like with the wave collapse), or even less plausible, to suppress the existence of computations in the arithmetical world, which is as impossible as suppressing the existence of a number. So the choices are relative to the state you are in, but even the cosmic consciousness cannot chose between being me and someone else. It can, or has to be both. Bruno On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Apr 2011, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: On 4/25/2011 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2011, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote: Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply): (JM):...In such view Random is I don't know, Chaos is: I don't know andstochastic is sort of a random. ... BM: Not necessarily. Why not free-up your mind to think wider and include the thought that some randomness may be intrinsic, not the result of ignorance of some deeper level? OK. (BM = Brent Meeker, here, not me). But I agree with Brent, and a perfect example of such intrinsic randomness is a direct consequence of determinism in the computer science. That is what is illustrated by the iteration of self-multiplication. Most observers, being repeatedly
Re: Love and Free Will
Dear Bruno and Brent: (not quite sure which 'open' par belongs to whom, since they are open in Bruno's text as well as in Brent's - but that is irrelevant at this moment: I don't intend to argue) I thank you for reflecting to my scribblings in a very professional spirit. I apologize for boring you by remarks (questions) derived from a different worldview (and vocabulary) from what you apply. I decided several times NOT to barge in, yet am fallible and in-disciplined. Sorry. To Bruno's they work well: I use 'almost' because of flaws that occur occasionally. Reason in my view: our so far learned (you may call it: observable, see below) 'world' is a portion of the wholeness and the entire totality is in relational exchange with everything - including those items we already know about. The rest of the interference is 'surprising' (i.e. out of our rulely - knowable expectations: considerable as flaws). Observer: I generalize the term to anything getting into relational connection with anything else, not restricted to 'conscious' (horribile dictu: human?) observers. So I would not call 'it' a he. My question was: can a mental object (thought?) be observing in my sense? (That would be an extension to a 'physical' view). I appreciate Brent's remark restricting the collapse etc. as part of the DESCRIPTION. And I loved the sweet fairy-tale: *God created a little mechanical clock to begin with, and six days was for him just 6 * 24 * 60 * 60 seconds ;) *by the bearded supernatural inventor, way before it was applicable to human-identified time concept. Thank you. Insanity: what is sanity? I admit that your (and Brent's etc.) positions are the best available and decent, I am stubborn (maybe I learnt insufficient math-physics to join the choir) but look now from a perspective above my head into an unlimited complexity from which certain 'aspects' (maybe derived by the actual state of our understanding only) are composed into limited models for ourselves to think WITHIN. That is our perceived reality (just a word) and subject to relations from yonder. Your boss, the universal machine (yes, it is feminine in French, Latin and German) is THERE, beyond my imagination and I don't force my flimsy mind to identify it in MY terms. She may be more than I can fathom. So I sit in my own schizophrenia: live in a restricted pool of ideas and think about an unrestricted everything beyond my capabilities. I don't want to compromise, nor to accept what seems incomplete. I hope to bother you less with my nightmares in the future (but don't count on it). . John M On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2011 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, On 28 Apr 2011, at 21:40, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, allow me to interject some remarks (questions?) indented and starting (JM): John On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Apr 2011, at 13:10, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno said, If not you would give to consciousness the ability to suppress branches in the quantum multiverse (like with the wave collapse), Exactly what I am asking. Is this a possibility? It is a logical possibility. But it is inconsistent with the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science, or with the idea that QM is a universal theory. *(JM): how about that computationalist hypothesis being false and QM being-NOT-a universal theory?* In that case we must search for another theory in mind studies, and another theory in physics studies. But today, they work well, especially together, and the more we study them, the more astonishing they look. I like them, because I like to surprises. I like theories which shake my prejudices. The collapse of the wave has been defended during almost one century and nobody can explain it. The observer can no more be described by quantum mechanics, nor by digital mechanism. * (JM): so be it. Is there a 'collapse' of a function? is an 'observer' reaistic as thought?* A theory can always be false. The problem of the collapse of the wave function is that it has to violate relativity, or physical realism or logic. Without collapse, an observer is at least as realistic than the objects of his study. The observer does not need a special status, he belongs to the world he is observing. Note that is exactly contrary to some interpretations of QM, e.g. Bohr's http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.4072v1.pdf and more recently Asher Peres http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9711/9711003v1.pdf The collapse of the wave function is easily explained as an epistemic event in one's description of the system. Brent With comp also. This allows monism: the researcher is embedded in the field that he searches. No need of a cut between subject and object. No need for an ontological dualism. But it is not a logical contradiction. It is just
Re: Self-aware = Consciousness?
Russell, this is my personal way of thinking in realization of the continual epistemic enrichment what earlier authors missed. I do not vouch for correctness of my ideas, they are like a level in an advancement I found followable in view of the latest epistemic additions in a continuously changing world(view). Self-awareness is definitely at the level of human complexity. I like to realize that lower levels of complexity (maybe starting down from apes?) can have 'awareness' and consciousness as well. When I arrived at my generalized formula of response to information it involved also a conscious acknowledgement of something outside the 'self'' without a postulate of 'self'. E.g. a figment of a physical entity can 'react' to a relation affecting its 'relations' (an ion vs. an electrode) without being humanly aware of Ohm's laws. So it IS (physically?) conscious and the response calls for its consciousness. If we measure our own complexity (in mental aspect) by the number of neurons participating in the thought-process (say 10^11 per brain) then we may question our words if a 'brain has lass than that - if ANY. Life processes (a name what I would like to get a good handle for) involve 'aware' observations (e.g. 'light' upon microorganisms, etc.) and respond to such without having neurons. This is in disagreement with the (Dennet and others' restriction of consciousness) human only identification (human self aggrandizement) and I go for a 'general' term on development of ideas AFTER the Dennet et al. assigned level. As for the ominous authentic-autonomous-(automatic?) FREE WILL? whatever we 'decide' FREELY(?) is a consequence of circumstances with two factors applied from within: 1. the ways our 'mind' (thinking, mentality, you name it) works by the genetic built of the TOOL (the neuronal brain) we use for this domain and 2. the sum total of our experience (memory?) acquired before such decision has been made, accumulated over our lifetime. (If you like: add inherited memes to it) We can disregard #1 and #2 and *'for other reasons'* decide differently, but that would not be FREE: it would be forced by those *other reasons* upon us (upon our FREE? - better? choice). #1 works many times (sub)-unconsciously, #2 provides many times unformulated changes to naturally occurring (free?) choices even without our conscious involvement. the 'robot-like' free will is not likely in a 'non-robot-like' thinking person with memory etc. I submit these ideas without a claim to defend them. They are not theories (which, btw. are applicable as long as in the further epistemic evolvement they are not deemed obsolete/false). John Mikes On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Russell, *From:* Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au *Sent:* Monday, May 02, 2011 7:25 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Max Substitution level = Min Observer Moment? Stephen King wrote: PS, to Russell: I think that you are conflating consciousness with self-awareness in section 9.5 of your book. wlEmoticon- sadsmile[1].png The two are not the same thing. Consciousness is purely passive. Self-awareness is active in that is involves the continuous modeling (passive consciousness) with the continuous act of choosing between alternatives (free will). I missed this comment earlier. It surprised me, as I do not conflate the two (self awareness requires consciousness, but consciousness without self-awareness is at least conceivable). Section 9.5 is about evolutionary explanations of self-awareness and free will, so is not about the more general phenomenon of consciousness at all. However, maybe you thought I was conflating the two in the very last sentence: I can conclude in agreement with Dennett that consciousness is an extremely rare property ion the animal kingdom. If this were only based on section 9.5, then this would be overreaching conclusions from the mirror test and Macchiavellian theory. But I also base the comment on the anthropic ants are not conscious argument (section 5.4), which is about the more general concept of consciousness, not just self-awareness, and also the Occam catastrophe argument (page 84) leads to a (tentative) conclusion that self-awareness is actually required for consciousness after all. It is one of the more contentious conclusions of the book, so I'm happy for that to be pulled apart and debated, -- 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 Umm, no. It was not just the last sentence. I would like to expand on your thought process that lead
Re: Animal consciousness and self-consciousness (was Re: Self-aware = Consciousness?)
Thanks, Russell, I am gladly standing corrected about our fellow smart animals. HOWEVER: We speak about a self-awareness as we, humans identify it in our human terms and views. Maybe other animals have different mental capabilities we cannot pursue or understand, as adjusted to their level of complexity usable in their 'menatality'. It may - or may not - be only according to their number of neurons as our conventional sciences teach. Or some may use senses we are deficient in, maybe totally ignorant about. (We have a deficient smelling sense as compared to a dog and missing orientation's senses of some birds, fish, turtle) In our anthropocentric boasting we believe that only our human observations are 'real'. Thanks for setting me straight John. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 May 2011, at 18:43, Brent Meeker wrote:[On the everything list] On 5/5/2011 11:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:31:50PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell, this is my personal way of thinking in realization of the continual epistemic enrichment what earlier authors missed. I do not vouch for correctness of my ideas, they are like a level in an advancement I found followable in view of the latest epistemic additions in a continuously changing world(view). Self-awareness is definitely at the level of human complexity. There is evidence of self-awareness in a handful of other species, including most of the great apes, bottlenose dolphins and asian elephants. Many of these same species appear capable of developing rudimentary language capability. I would not be surprised to see a number of other species also show evidence of self-awareness in time - including some birds, and maybe even some cephalopods. However, I am also equally sure that most species are incapable of it - too many species fail the tests we pose of them. 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 http://www.theonion.com/video/scientists-successfully-teach-gorilla-it-will-die,17165/ Hard to really conclude from one video, but it is still very interesting. I forward it on the FOR list where some people argue that non human animals are not conscious. This video illustrates that some non-human mammals might even be *self-conscious*, and thus probably Löbian. Next step: we should give some salvia to the gorilla, so that he could begin to doubt the body-picture argument for their own end, because, in that video, the gorilla might just have been brainwashed to take its end for granted, from some (third person) pictures. This shows how much self-consciousness can delude us and makes us confusing first person views and third person descriptions. Of course such an illusion/confusion are reasonable from a darwinian short term struggle of life perspective. The more you have neurons, the more you *can* be deluded, and 'nature exploits that fact. David Nyman replied: On the other hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCYGm1vMJ0 Well, yes, this is definitely convincing :) 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: Animal consciousness and self-consciousness (was Re: Self-aware = Consciousness?)
A stimulating discussion, indeed. I side with Brent in most of his remarks and question SOME of Bruno's in my 'unfounded' agnostic worldview of 'some' complexity of unrestricted everything - beyond our capabilities to grasp. Which IMO does not agree with Bruno's * I don't think this hard problem is soluble. * Looking at the inductive 'evolution' in our epistemology my agnosticism seems more optimistic than this. Within our present capabilities is missing from the statement, but our capabilities increased constantly - not only by the introduction of 'zero' in math or the Solar system (1st grade cosmology) of Copernicus. I do not restrict the grand kids of the grand kids of our grand kids. I lived through an epoch from right after candlelight with horses into MIR, the e-mail and DNA. I would not guess 'what's next'. To retort Brent's AI-robot I mention a trivial example: I have a light-switch on my wall that is *conscious* about lighting up the bulbs whenever it gets flipped its button to 'up'. It does not know that 'I am' doing that, but does what it 'knows'. The rest is similar, at different levels of complexity - the Mars robot still not coming close to 'my' idea-churning or Bruno's math. And IMO biology is not 'reduced to chemistry (which is reduced to physics)' - only the *PART we consider* has a (partial?) explanation in those reduced sciences, with neglected other phenomena outside such explanatory restrictions. Just as 'life' is not *within* biology, which may be closer to it than chemistry. or physics, but genetics is further on and still not 'life'. Yes, consciousness - the historic word applied by many who did not know what they are talking about and applied it in the sense needed to 'apply' to *THEIR OWN* theoretical needs - is an artifact not identifiable, unless we reach an agreement *WHAT IT IS* (if it IS indeed). In my wording the complexity that defines many of the applicable tenets form some PROCESS(es), not a mathematically identifiable expression - nor 'awareness' as in another domain. The 'hard problem' is still open. We need a new insight. We are hindered by too much mental blockage due to accepted (believed? calculated?) hearsay assumptions and their consequences. We 'guess' what we do not know. You see, I should keep my mouse shut... John On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/9/2011 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2011, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote: On 5/9/2011 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 May 2011, at 19:36, meekerdb wrote: On 5/7/2011 8:19 AM, John Mikes wrote: Thanks, Russell, I am gladly standing corrected about our fellow smart animals. HOWEVER: We speak about a self-awareness as we, humans identify it in our human terms and views. Maybe other animals have different mental capabilities we cannot pursue or understand, as adjusted to their level of complexity usable in their 'menatality'. It may - or may not - be only according to their number of neurons as our conventional sciences teach. Or some may use senses we are deficient in, maybe totally ignorant about. (We have a deficient smelling sense as compared to a dog and missing orientation's senses of some birds, fish, turtle) In our anthropocentric boasting we believe that only our human observations are 'real'. Thanks for setting me straight John. Not only do other species have different perceptual modalities; even within the self-awareness there are different kinds. Referring to my favorite example of the AI Mars rover, such a rover has awareness of it's position on the planet. It has awareness of it's battery charge and the functionality of various subsystems. It has awareness of its immediate goal (climb over that hill) and of some longer mission (proceed to the gully and take a soil sample). It's not aware of where these goals arise (as humans are not aware of why they fall in love). It's not aware of it's origins or construction. It's not a social creature, so it's not aware of it's position in a society or of what others may think of it. I expect that when we have understood consciousness we will see that it is a complex of many things, just as when we came to understand life we found that it is a complex of many different processes. Life and consciousness are different notion with respect to the notion of explanation we can find from them. In case of life, we can reduce a third person describable phenomenon to another one (for example we can argue that biology is in principle reduced to chemistry, which is reduced to physics). For consciousness there is an hard problem, which is the mind-body problem, and most people working on the subject agree that it needs another sort of explanation. Then comp shows that indeed, part of that problem, is that if we use the traditional mechanistic rationale, we inherit the need of reducing physics to number theory and intensional number theory
Re: Animal consciousness and self-consciousness (was Re: Self-aware = Consciousness?)
Hi, Bruno, excuse me for getting lost between you and Brent. You are absolutely right: I did not follow, study and understand those many thousand pages of discussions over the more than a decade on this list, together with the many tenthousand pages (not) learned to understand them. Indeed I am out of the vocabulary. Here are some little nitpicks I feel I can respond to: you wrote: *? (I guess you are trivializing the notion of consciousness). You might be right, but with comp the light switch is a non well defined object, like any piece of matter. So what you say is not false, but senseless*. \ I was trying to trivialize Brent's robot, as you identified: 'any piece of matter'. And my example was trivial, in such respect. About my inquiry for consciousness: I questioned *WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?* your reply: *...Indeed, comp does solve the 'hard problem', up to a reduction of physics to a modality of universal machine's self-reference (making the theory testable).* does not enlighten me: a modality of universal machine's self reference draws my question: *WHAT *modality? *HOW* does that self reference work? *Testability* is not an argument, it may be a way *TO* an argument. Did the hard problem change from its original content which was the topical identification of physical data measurable in our neuronal system? (Mind-Body?) (Plus: as I recall you were not too concrete about our knowledge of the universal Machine either). *LIFE* in my views is not biological, biology (and other life sciences) try to get a handle on CERTAIN aspects we select in the generality we may call 'life'. I think we agreed that there is no such thing as *The TRUTH -* there are tenets you or me may accept as 'true' in some sense. I think I already sent you my 'draft' about Science-Religion about belief systems. Have a good time John M On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, On 09 May 2011, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote: A stimulating discussion, indeed. I side with Brent in most of his remarks and question SOME of Bruno's in my 'unfounded' agnostic worldview of 'some' complexity of unrestricted everything - beyond our capabilities to grasp. Which IMO does not agree with Bruno's * I don't think this hard problem is soluble. * It is not Bruno's, but Brent's. Looking at the inductive 'evolution' in our epistemology my agnosticism seems more optimistic than this. Indeed, comp does solve the 'hard problem', up to a reduction of physics to a modality of universal machine's self-reference (making the theory testable). Within our present capabilities is missing from the statement, but our capabilities increased constantly - not only by the introduction of 'zero' in math or the Solar system (1st grade cosmology) of Copernicus. I do not restrict the grand kids of the grand kids of our grand kids. I lived through an epoch from right after candlelight with horses into MIR, the e-mail and DNA. I would not guess 'what's next'. To retort Brent's AI-robot I mention a trivial example: I have a light-switch on my wall that is *conscious* about lighting up the bulbs whenever it gets flipped its button to 'up'. ? It does not know that 'I am' doing that, but does what it 'knows'. ? (I guess you are trivializing the notion of consciousness). You might be right, but with comp the light switch is a non well defined object, like any piece of matter. So what you say is not false, but senseless. The rest is similar, at different levels of complexity - the Mars robot still not coming close to 'my' idea-churning or Bruno's math. And IMO biology is not 'reduced to chemistry (which is reduced to physics)' - only the *PART we consider* has a (partial?) explanation in those reduced sciences, with neglected other phenomena outside such explanatory restrictions. Just as 'life' is not *within* biology, which may be closer to it than chemistry. or physics, but genetics is further on and still not 'life'. What is life? I think that here it is just a question of vocabulary, unless you think about a precise biological phenomenon which would escape the actual theories? In science we bever pretend to know the truth, but we have to take the theories seriously enough if only to find the discrepancy with the facts. Of course, since theology has been taking out of science, many scientist (more than I thought when young) have a theological interpretation of science (and some without knowing it). They are doubly wrong of course. Yes, consciousness - the historic word applied by many who did not know what they are talking about and applied it in the sense needed to 'apply' to *THEIR OWN* theoretical needs - is an artifact not identifiable, unless we reach an agreement *WHAT IT IS* (if it IS indeed). Here I totally disagree. We cannot define in 3p terms what is consciousness, but we know pretty well what it is. We dispose of many
Re: Animal consciousness and self-consciousness (was Re: Self-aware = Consciousness?)
Brent wrote: *But it also entails that The World of Warcraft and what I dreamed last night exist.* *Brent* Of course! they exist as themselves - not in context of 'QM or the Bible, or anything else'. Anything we think of exists - at least in our thought (at that time?) when it occurred. There is no sure way to distinguish between 'existence' in diverse aspects of our figments (human thoughts). Brent also mentions proof and axioms: *...1.Incompleteness is the non-existence of some proofs.* 2,*That some functions are not-computable only implies their existence in the sense that they are implied by some axioms.* ** 1.- Thanks, Brent, although I would not use for some 'nonexisting' the word proof. Proof is tricky: it refers to thinking within the 'model' with justification 'within' as well. Leading to in-model TRUTH. In my agnosticism (incomplete knowledge?) 'proof'' (truth?) is questionable. 2.- In my vocabulary axioms are human inventions to make 'sciemtific' concepts feasible, not vice versa. One way to look beyond the conventional may be to disregard axioms and find different relations from the 'accepted'. Such method - in the agnostic thinking - may lead to *NEW*findings in addition to the 'registered' (scientific?) knowledge-base, what I am willing to assign as anticipatory - a domain (Robert Rosen) I would love to understand. (Are we restricted here to mathematical 'functions'? I like to expand my thinking domain.) Problem: Bruno's retort: *And this entails (and explains) the appearance of the physical universe, but in a derived and most sophisticated higher order (epistemological) sense, not in the arithmetical sense (indeed the physical universe become a non trivial and non computable object, obeying partially computable laws, etc. Bruno * Assuming (what I do not) that a so called arithmetical sense is a 'higher order' - not the one invented within the bounds of our human logical churning. Indeed: the 'existence' of the physical universe (a figment we live by) is non-trivial, with one caveat of mine: *Nothing OBEYS our (partially computable, or any other 'physical'?) LAWS, *this is the wrong expression. We derived (mostly within a debatable statistical method) the habits we so far observed, deduced their (mostly mathematically quantized behavior) and call them laws. Those laws are valid as long as the borders of our statistical considerations hold in THAT respect. Conventional sciences are mostly built and exercised within such limitations. * * On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/11/2011 1:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 May 2011, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote: On 5/10/2011 9:01 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2011 13:21, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What does it mean for numbers to understand? Suppose I can answer this in a way that you understand. Then it means the same things for the numbers. This seems to me to be a very central point. Chalmers gives very convincing arguments why an Aristotelian machine's expressed behaviour (including its thoughts and beliefs) are indistinguishable from a conscious person's - excepting only that it is not IN FACT conscious (!). How does he establish that it is not conscious? This alone should be enough (as indeed he argues) to demonstrate the inadequacy of such a metaphysics of matter, unless consciousness itself is to be denied (which, as Deutsch argues in his most recent book, is just bad explanation). It seems as if, starting from an Aristotelian perspective, there is no way this puzzle can be resolved even with the addition of various ad hoc assumptions (such as Chalmers himself attempts, unsuccessfully IMO); the assumed primacy of material processes inevitably ends in the vitiation of mental explanation, in this view of the matter. To resolve the puzzle it seems that material processes and mental processes (or, one might say, material and mental explanations) must emerge as deeply correlated aspects of a single narrative. Hence, if computationalism is to be the explanation for the mental, it must likewise suffice as that of the material. The problem with computationalism is that exists = is computed does not entail computed = exists and if you hypothesize the latter it explains too much. But comp precisely prevents the possibility that exists = is computed. For example comp entails the existence of many non computable functions, incompleteness, etc. That is what theoretical computer science illustrates (usually by diagonalization). Incompleteness is the *non-existence* of some proofs. That some functions are not-computable only implies their existence in the sense that they are implied by some axioms. Now, the reverse, that is, computed = exists, is trivially true, with exists used in the usual arithmetical sense, like in prime numbers exists. But it also entails that The World of Warcraft and what I dreamed
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Quentin,
good question. My agnostic thinking asks first: can you define death? I
think it is something like the opposite of life - begging the question:
how would you define LIFE? \
Our terms are subsets for the figment physical world and I would not go
along with the medical definition of death without an adequate term of
'life' pointing to the *end* of which.
I 'think' life is much more than a biologic process - especially restricted
to carbon-based physical constructs (molecules?) and borderlines as e.g.
'cell-membranes' etc.
The closest I came up death calls for a disintegration of complexity (at
least its functional(?) substantial parts) in relations we can characterize
in our biosphere as *LIFE*, notable as exercising Metabolism and Repair
('MR' after: Robert Rosen).
If life is not a noun, rather a process, the discontinuation of it also may
be a process with different parameters.
John M
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't all of this a denial of death ? Is it possible to ascribe a meaning
to the end of consciousness ?
Quentin
2011/5/21 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
Brent: I mostly agree (if it is of any value...).
I am FOR an idea of MWI (maybe not as the 'classic' goes: in my view ALL
of them may be potentially different) but appreciate the power of hearsay
(absorbed as FACT) - you may include other sensory/mental domains as well.
What I take exception to is the *world building role* of an assumption
of a deterministic evolution of THE(?) wave function. -
Of what???
John
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/19/2011 4:31 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Scerir and Friends,
Thank you for posting this link to N. Gisin’s paper. In it Gisin
makes a very eloquent and forceful argument against MWI based on the
experience of free will.
Doesn't seem very forceful to me. There's a contradiction between the
MWI and free will because the MWI assumes deterministic evolution of the
wave function. But that doesn't show that there is a contradiction between
MWI and the *experience* of free-will. You could as well say that the
feeling to time passage is a forceful argument for physical time.
Brent
You can find a talk that he gave on the subject here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnV7zUR9UA
I think that Gisin's argument is stunted by the fact that he does not
consider the effects of multiple entities having free will and instead only
considers a single entity having free will in the MWI picture. His point in
the paper that if a specific interaction with one possible state of affair
produce a desired effect, this very same specific interaction with most of
the other - equally real according to many-worlds - state of affairs would
produce uncontrolled random effects. Hence, it seems that there is no way to
maintain a possible window for free will in the many-worlds view is correct
but the uncontrolled randomness is only random because we can only resort
to an equiprobable ensemble to do calculations of the effects of the
interaction in that context.
If we consider multiple observers within the MWI, it seems to me that
in order for some measure of coherent communications to obtain between them
there must be something like a super-selection rule on the branches of the
superpositions such that only those mutually compatible observables are able
to form a set of mutually true (in the bivalent Boolean sense) in the sense
of relative commutativity of observables on each time-like (not just
space-like) hypersurface of a foliation of space-time for those observers. I
think that this is something that decoherence is pointing toward.
Free will follows from the lack of a priori determinateness of the
members of that set of observables. Just as we cannot demonstrate a
computation that can compute whether or not a given computation will halt,
we can similarly not demonstrate a finite Cauchy hypersurface of initial
conditions that can uniquely determine both the order of measurements nor
the mutual results of those measurements. Free Will is the freedom to chose
the basis of a measurement.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: scerir
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:15 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time?
Nonlocality, free will and no many-worlds
-Nicolas Gisin
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440
Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something
about all
possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations.
Hence Nature is
nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief
review of some
recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the
existence of free
will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics.
--
You received
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Dear Brent, let me cut in with your last par: *...There is a tendency to talk about human-equivalent intelligence or human level intelligence as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved to enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining, deduction,... There's no reason to suppose it is the epitome of intelligence. Intelligence may take many forms, some of which we would have difficulty realizing or crediting. Like a universal machine that is not programmed, which by one measure is maximally intelligent but also maximally incompetent. Even in humans intelligence is far from one-dimensional. A small child is extremely intelligent as measured by the ability to learn, but not very smart as measured by knowledge. **Brent* * * and say: thank you. In my vocabulary (agnostic) we cannot simulate human (not limited to our present 'knowledge'), nor do (I?) have an acceptable definition for intelligence (not restricted of course to the methodology of the US IQ tests). Inter-lego means IMO to read between lines - a mentally active attitude. Mentally means more than we could identify 3000 years ago, but still on the move for more to be learned today. We are still YOUR small child. I look for 'intelligence' in more than human traits, but accept your distinction of human-equivalent (especially the human level). To be smart is useful, but IMO not a sole requirement of intelligence. IMO the universal machine (I wish I knew more about it...) is not programmed within our human technological thinking, - maybe it is way 'above' it - and incompetent only in our human distinction. I have a hard time to follow your one-dimensional view of intelligence. It may reach into the 'nonlinear' as well, without us being aware of it. Thanks to Bruno for the hint to my old (15-20y ago) friendly contact Ben Goertzel whom I try to ask about his recent positions. He had 'fertilizing' ideas. To (Bruno's) other par: do you have a 'measurable' definition for conscious - to speak about (virgin = not programmed) yet 'maximally conscious' universal machine(s)? - WITH included some 'Self-Consciousness'? (In my recent (ongoing) speculations I erred into the 'world's' Unlimited Complexity, - as said: 'out there', of which we derived only a so far acquired portion FOR our world(view?) (including the conventional sciences) as* perceived reality* or say a better name - with imagining a* perfectsymmetry * (more than existing in our present knowledge) of hard-to-identify (hard-to-distinguish) 'aspects' in exchanging relations rather than identifiable topics relating to our (worldly) topics, we can use. This would serve a higher level of agnosticism. Our 'models' we think *within* (R. Rosen) are formed by our capability to position the received (perceived?) phenomenal information adjusted into our 'mental'(?) personalized, unique worldview upon Colin Hale's earlier 'mini-solipsism'). n such lines the universal machine etc. are 'human inventions' to facilitate some (our?) understanding of the 'world' still beyond our knowledge base. And - sorry! - so are 'numbers' as well. We cannot overstep our human logic - at least not in fundamental questions. Best regards John M On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2011 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Doesn't this objection only apply to attempts to construct an AI with human-equivalent intelligence? As a counter example I'm thinking here of Ben Goertzel's OpenCog, an attempt at artificial general intelligence (AGI), whose design is informed by a theory of intelligence that does not attempt to mirror or model human intelligence. In light of the Benacerraf principle, isn't it possible in principle to provably construct AIs so long as we're not trying to emulate or model human intelligence? I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed) universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even maximally conscious. Then adding induction gives them Löbianity, and this makes them self-conscious (which might already be a delusion of some sort). Unfortunately the hard task is to interface such (self)-consciousness with our probable realities (computational histories). This is what we can hardly be sure about. I still don't know if the brain is just a filter of consciousness, in which case losing neurons might enhance consciousness (and some data in neurophysiology might confirm this). I think Goertzel is more creating a competent machine than an intelligent one, from what I have read about it. I oppose intelligence/consciousness and competence/ingenuity. The first is needed to develop the later, but the later has a negative feedback on the first. Bruno There is a tendency to talk about human-equivalent intelligence or human level intelligence as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved to enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining, deduction,... There's no
QUESTION TO BRUNO
Dear Bruno, would you have an e-mail address where I can contact Ben Goertzel - an old list acquaintance ? Thanks 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: Caenorhabditis elegans
Dear Rex, an enjoyable reading, indeed. I send my best to Caenorhabdites elegantes for their scientific prowess. Are your numbers correct? Is the brain-wiring length indeed 170 trillion microns long? (I took 1.7 km for a mile). And for the synapses: I was modest and took only 10 billion neurons to a brain, which accounts for 20,000 synapses per neuron if there are 100 trillions of them. (2 axons to 1 s) I am not an expert in these topics, but the drawings I saw would not facilitate that much. I think I counted the zeros correctly. S.Hameroff and Penrose had a piece in an early issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies (UK) about How to feel to be a worm - counting with 1000 neurons per earthworm (It was a follow-up to Nagel's What is it to be like a bat?) of which my reflection denied any conclusions if one is not thinking worm-ly, i.e. by the complexity of an earth worm-like mentality. We try to understand primitive construct using our very sophisticated (complex) structures and there is no way to play it down to a lesser complex level - we just have a complex mentality, terms/thoughts. We may pretend to understand a lower level. I feel similar troubles in a computer-evaluation of the 302 neuron chap by a 'base-structure' built (by and for) in 10 billion neuronal complexity brains, or - as some AI fans state: for even an exceeding of such. I find it not believable to properly downgrade. The study, however, is relevant and appreciable. Thanks again. John On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: Brain uploading for worms... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/science/21brain.html Caenorhabditis elegans, as the roundworm is properly known, is a tiny, transparent animal just a millimeter long. In nature, it feeds on the bacteria that thrive in rotting plants and animals. It is a favorite laboratory organism for several reasons, including the comparative simplicity of its brain, which has just 302 neurons and 8,000 synapses, or neuron-to-neuron connections. These connections are pretty much the same from one individual to another, meaning that in all worms the brain is wired up in essentially the same way. Such a system should be considerably easier to understand than the human brain, a structure with billions of neurons, 100,000 miles of biological wiring and 100 trillion synapses. The biologist Sydney Brenner chose the roundworm as an experimental animal in 1974 with this goal in mind. He figured that once someone provided him with the wiring diagram of how 302 neurons were connected, he could then compute the worm’s behavior. The task of reconstructing the worm’s wiring system fell onJohn G. White, now at the University of Wisconsin. After more than a decade’s labor, which required examining 20,000 electron microscope cross sections of the worm’s anatomy, Dr. White worked out exactly how the 302 neurons were interconnected. But the wiring diagram of even the worm’s brain proved too complex for Dr. Brenner’s computational approach to work. Dr. Bargmann was one of the first biologists to take Dr. White’s wiring diagram and see if it could be understood in other ways. [...] After studying the little animal for 24 years, she believes she is closer to understanding how its nervous system works. Why is the wiring diagram produced by Dr. White so hard to interpret? She pulls down from her shelves a dog-eared copy of the journal in which the wiring was first described. The diagram shows the electrical connections that each of the 302 neurons makes to others in the system. These are the same kind of connections as those made by human neurons. But worms have another kind of connection. Besides the synapses that mediate electrical signals, there are also so-called gap junctions that allow direct chemical communication between neurons. The wiring diagram for the gap junctions is quite different from that of the synapses. Not only does the worm’s connectome, as Dr. Bargmann calls it, have two separate wiring diagrams superimposed on each other, but there is a third system that keeps rewiring the wiring diagrams. This is based on neuropeptides, hormonelike chemicals that are released by neurons to affect other neurons. The neuropeptides probably help control the brain’s general status, or mood. A strong hint of how they work comes from the npr-1 gene, which makes a protein that responds to neuropeptides. When the npr-1 gene is active, its neuron becomes unavailable to its local circuit. That may be a reason why the worm’s behavior cannot be computed from the wiring diagram: the pattern of connections is changing all the time under the influence of the worm’s 250 neuropeptides. The connectome shows the electrical connections, and hence the quickest paths for information to move through the worm’s brain. “But if only a subset of neurons are available at any time, the connectome is ambiguous,” she says. The human
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Russell: ...Life-like phenomena implies something 'life-like'. So: LIKE WHAT are those phenomena? I would not turn to my other side in peace that biologists are negligent. I ask them: what do you have in mind when you SAY: l i f e ? (their base line: the 'bio') It is more than just biochem churnings of C,O,H,N,P,...based molecules. Robert Rosen said: Metabolism and Repair - but on WHAT substrate? Brent is right, the question is open. Then again consider the phenomena in different 'physical' environments - maybe in totally different circumstantial ones. Alife has wide borders I suppose. Hi temp, anerobic, hi/low pressure, different Mendelejeff set-up, different gravity, density, etc. etc.? Consciousness is not far and (my agnostic views) the so far unknown factors get involved as we learn about them. I call this one a response to relations (formerly: information). Life can be anything that changes? where does mentality come in? John M On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:44:37AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: But of course we can prove that a machine can think to the same degree we can prove other people think. That we cannot prove it from some self-evident set of axioms is completely unsurprising. This comports with my idea that with the development of AI the question of consciousness will come to be seen as a archaic, like What is life?. Brent What is life? is _still_ a vexing question. Biologists don't worry too much about it, because the answer to it doesn't really help their day-to-day work. But in the Artificial Life field, it is more acute. Mostly we dodge the issue by saying we're studying life-like phenomena, and leave it at that, but at every ALife conference I've been to, there has been a session (with multiple papers addressing this or connected topics). -- 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--is it really free?
Deqr Craig, it makes a lot of sense what you expressed in (too many?) words. May I add some more? In general you take most of our 'human' concepts as final, fixed, defined FACTS (?) and look at the world through them. Such anthropocentric position denigrates the limitlessness of the world. There are innumerable aspects we did not (yet?) meet and so omit their influence on our thinking, behavior, emotions, events, whatever. Our 'mind' (undefined) is part of the totality (unlimited complexity) and so whatever we 'feel' as our own decision is a product of the combined influences we receive - including the input of our mental built. (That includes the felling of a falsifiability as well). In our 'ways' we may have choices and that adds to our 'free' feeling. An interesting idea for a singularity to have no space and time, the base-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may also mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the (physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take important for (my term) singularity. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here is a different take on free will vs. determinism. They are the same thing. We only perceive them to be different because our subjectivity warps our perspective for us. Free will is ultimately a feeling that it is us who is making the decision, while determinism is ultimately a thought that free agency must be defined in terms of objective facts. Whether or not that feeling or thought corresponds to a universal reality is not falsifiable or relevant once we re-frame the phenomenon as a single relation which has objective and subjective topologies. What I'm saying is that the existence of the feeling of free will, illusion or not, is sufficient to negate the argument of pure determinism. A mechanistic universe would have no conceivable method of, or benefit by conjuring such an illusion. There is no function that would serve an evolutionary machine to develop a fictional sense of teleology were there not such a possibility already inherent in the mechanics themselves. Not only would it be superfluous and counterproductive from an efficiency standpoint, but there really is no aspect of physics or biochemistry which could serve as a toolbox for creating some kind of simulation of participation and agency. You can make a machine seem like it has free will, but unless the machine feels like it has free will - feels the risks of consequences of it's words and actions to it's own survival - feels it's own survival with visceral, overwhelming significance, then there is only the reflection of our own free will. When I look at another human being who is similar to myself, I subconsciously qualify their agency with a shared sense of volition. Someone much older or younger, from a radically different culture, even someone with different physical characteristics are presented with a narrower bandwidth of free will to me. I have to consciously fight the default prejudice that steers me into stereotypical associations, otherwise I tend to think that what I see of a person and what I assume about them based on their appearance is what is influencing their behavior. I think This is how children behave., but I can still realize that any individual child has some capacity to deviate from my generic expectations. The closer I get to a person, the more that I know them, the deeper the subjective connection and the higher quality of individuality I can resolve in my perception of them, their life, etc. Take that interpersonal phenomenon of prejudice and magnify it exponentially to other species of animal, biology, and finally physical phenomena of a vastly different scale such as planet or molecule. I'm not suggesting that we should consider atoms to be 'people just like us' or something, I'm trying to explain how self- similarity functions as an elemental principle which unites Perception with General Relativity. Free will is a feature of subjective perception, while determinism is how free will appears when it is reflected through existential aperture as relativity. Probability is the external view of Feeling or Mood. It's the same thing, only probability is distanced as an a-signifying, generic, automatic, unconscious phenomenon while mood is a sensorimotive experience of the same thing. It is reflected through the essential aperture as signifying, proprietary, volitional, sentient phenomenon. As for trying to conceive of Many Worlds or a grand consciousness, I prefer to think of the singularity as what you get when you suck out all of the space and time from the cosmos. Once you realize that size and distance have no meaning outside of their perceptual-relativism of one phenomena to another, then the idea of a singularity from which the big bang 'emerges' as an event in time becomes
Re: consciousness
Dear Bruno, here we go again A very colorful discussion about that darn consciousness, indeed, as it develops. I find YOUR scholarly text a bit skewed (Goedel and Goedel) since math logic is IMO a product of human(!) consciousness. I do not comment on your MACHINE consciousness, since I don't feel comfortable as a machine with set inventory/design, even a universal one - IF IT IS a machine. The human intellect (another unknown! - not sarcastically said) has no borders or inventory, at least we have not experienced such so far. A causally effective Ccness? I wrote already my 'causality' deviation as considered within the 'model' of our so far acquired knowledge and the deterministic 'reasons' considered only by factors 'within', while the still unknown factors (maybe lots of such) also influence all that happens assigned to 'causality' of the partial listing. (This is the reason why our terms are not 'absolute' and The Truth.) We may 'list' EFFECTIVE causes, but maybe not all. I would not like to offend you with my hint to 'the world beyond arithmetical truth (logic). Soroud's expression: *consciousness is always embodied consciousness of life...* begs the question: what is life? how different is it from Ccness, if I identify the latter as 'response to relations' (information)? what else is life? They seem to be close in such formulation. None of them human or even terrestrial. Not even 'bodily ascertainable' which is a part of the figment physical world. The JCS-online list has a long discussion about structured and unstructured dualism. I think Descartes HAD to include the soul into his 'human' unit to escape from Inquisition and that is why he anticipated the complexity in our time's idea - that includes the body and *mind* with its bi sided influences as a body-soul dualism. (I don't want to start a battle on this). Consciousness - as the process of responding to relations is universal, human and terrestrial concepts are includable, it is independent of our so far acquired knowledge and does not restrict the application to the physical world and so the domains developed by the human mind. I have no theory to that, am insecure about the deterministic 'happening' - a term that requires 'time' - for a system where there is no time-factor identified as we know it. The so far perceived reality I know of did not give me(!) answers to a lot of questions. That's why I say I am agnostic. John Mikes On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 13:23, selva kumar wrote: Is consciousness causally effective ? I found this question in previous threads,but I didn't find a answer. Was it in the FOR list (on the book Fabric of reality by David Deutsch) ? I thought I did answer this question, which is a very imprtant and fundamental question. It is also a tricky question, which is very similar or related to the question of free-will, and it can lead to vocabulary issue. I often defend the idea that consciousness is effective. Indeed the role I usually defend for consciousness is a relative self-speeding up ability. Yet the question is tricky, especially due to the presence of the causally, which is harder to grasp or define than consciousness itself. Let me try to explain. For this I need some definition, and I hope for some understanding of the UDA and a bit of AUDA. Ask precision if needed. The main ingredient for the explanation are three theorems due to Gödel: - the Gödel completeness theorem (available for machine talking first order logic or a sufficiently effective higher order logic). The theorem says that a theory or machine is consistent (syntactical notion, = ~Bf) iff the theory has a model (a mathematical structure in which it makes sense to say that a proposition is true). I will rephrase this by saying that a machine is consistent if and only if the machine's beliefs make sense in some reality. - the Gödel second incompleteness theorem ~Bf - ~B(~Bf): if the machine is consistent, then this is not provable by the machine. So if the beliefs are real in some reality, the machine cannot prove the existence of that reality. This is used in some strict way, because we don't assume the machine can prove its completeness (despite this has shown to be the case by Orey). This entails that eventually, the machine can add as new axiom its own consistency, but this leads to a new machine, for which a novel notion of consistency appears, and the 'new' machine can still not prove the existence of a reality satisfying its beliefs. yet that machine can easily prove the consistency of the machine she was. This can be reitered as many times as their are (constructive) ordinals, and this is what I describe as a climbing from G to G*. The modal logic of self-reference remains unchanged, but the arithmetical interpretation of it expands. An infinity of previously undecidable propositions become
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Hi, Craig (and I still would appreciate your signing the end of your post, as several of us list-members do - for easier reading) you sound like e thinking 'mind' (what is mind?) - with limitations of course (as you implied). *Wiring?* I changed the fundamental 'wiring' of my mental pattern (belief system?) several times - maybe every 20-30 years or so and still 'feel' the same solipsistic self. I think our nervous system is tissue-related, part of the physical world equipment while our mentality grows in unrestricted domains over the millennia. I believe we are more than 'nerves'. I consider the brain a TOOL we use in our mentality of which science knows precious little. I don't find a 'software package' applicable, just as the 250years ago used 'steam engine' and the electric drive of the 20th c. became obsolete. Free will was very effective in the hands of religious despots to make the faithful obedient for fear of punishment thereafter. Without such there would be hell, greed, brutality, etc. - a reason why 'uncle Lenin' reneged on announcing his communistic society - the heavens of happiness - before that new type of humans (the Communist Man) can be developed - described in religious scripts as 'angels'. His merciful death prevented him to see all that vanish. It is comforting to sit in anthropocentric lukewarmness, it is time to do more. And we can. The model of the so far acquired knowledge base is expanding, yet we think within. OK, but that does not have to restrict our potentials. Happy 4th of July John On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Hi John, As far as anthropocentricity, I think that it is escapable only through the anthropocentric notion that we can de-anthropocentricize our perspective. The world has limitlessness, but it also has innumerable limits. Our experiences, ideas, logic, etc are limited by the perception and cognition of the human nervous system, yet our faculties are able to connect us with what convincingly appears to be an external world in which we participate as agents on an individual level. To explain that, I propose that our experience is seamlessly integrated fact and fiction, transparent and solipsistic. Our wiring gives us the best transparency it can within the constraints of what is physically is, but it must also deliver the signature qualities of human awareness in it's every subjective function. Free will is part of that software package, but if we go looking for it in that software's native 'hardware analyzer', we're not going to see anything because that viewer is only a command line text editor. Nothing looks like it has free will when you use that. On Jul 2, 10:52 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Deqr Craig, it makes a lot of sense what you expressed in (too many?) words. May I add some more? In general you take most of our 'human' concepts as final, fixed, defined FACTS (?) and look at the world through them. Such anthropocentric position denigrates the limitlessness of the world. There are innumerable aspects we did not (yet?) meet and so omit their influence on our thinking, behavior, emotions, events, whatever. Our 'mind' (undefined) is part of the totality (unlimited complexity) and so whatever we 'feel' as our own decision is a product of the combined influences we receive - including the input of our mental built. (That includes the felling of a falsifiability as well). In our 'ways' we may have choices and that adds to our 'free' feeling. An interesting idea for a singularity to have no space and time, the base-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may also mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the (physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take important for (my term) singularity. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a different take on free will vs. determinism. They are the same thing. We only perceive them to be different because our subjectivity warps our perspective for us. Free will is ultimately a feeling that it is us who is making the decision, while determinism is ultimately a thought that free agency must be defined in terms of objective facts. Whether or not that feeling or thought corresponds to a universal reality is not falsifiable or relevant once we re-frame the phenomenon as a single relation which has objective and subjective topologies. What I'm saying is that the existence of the feeling of free will, illusion or not, is sufficient to negate the argument of pure determinism. A mechanistic universe would have no conceivable method of, or benefit by conjuring such an illusion. There is no function that would serve an evolutionary machine to develop a fictional sense of teleology were
Re: bruno list
Stasthis, let me barge in with one fundamental - not dispersing my reply into those (many and long) details: As I read your comments/replies (and I agree with your position within the limits I want to expose here), I have the feeling that you agree with the rest of the combatants in considering 'the brain', our idea about 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' as complete and total. I argue that it is not. Upon historic reminiscence all such inventory about these (and many more) concepts has been growing by addition and by phasing out imaginary 'content' as we 'learn', - an ongoing process that does not seem to have reached the ultimate end/completion. So you are right in considering whatever we new yesterday (my substitution for today) but not including what we may know tomorrow. Drawing conclusions upon incomplete inventory does not seem acceptable. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: My position is that consciousness occurs necessarily if the sort of activity that leads to intelligent behaviour occurs. Consciousness is the same thing as that which 'leads to intelligent behavior' for the subjective perspective (which makes your position tautological, that consciousness occurs if consciousness occurs) but for the objective perspective, there is no such thing as observable behavior that is intrinsically intelligent, only behavior which reminds one of their own intelligent motives. Let's call the subjective view of one's own behaviors 'motives' for clarity, and the objective view of 'intelligent seeming' as 'anthropomorphic behavior', or more universally, isomorphic phenomenology. Intelligence is a behaviour and consciousness is an internal state. It appears that what most people call intelligent behaviour you call anthropomorphic behaviour. This is not immediately obvious, at least to me. I assume therefore that it is not true: that it is possible to have intelligent behaviour (or neuron-like behaviour) without consciousness. This assumption is then shown to lead to absurdity. What absurdity? A cartoon of a neuron has neuron-like behavior, and it's clearly not intelligent. At what point does a cartoon improve enough that it becomes conscious? To me that shows the assumption that you can't have something that behaves like a physical neuron without there existing such a thing as consciousness as absurd. Of course you can make any physical design of surfaces and mechanical relations between them without there being some feeling entity appearing to enjoy your simulation. Assume that this is so, and see where it leads. Yes, perception occurs at the brain - which is why you can numb pain with narcotics without affecting pain receptors, but perception also occurs everywhere in the nervous system, which is why you can use an local anesthetic on the nociceptors too which doesn't affect the brain. If it was truly all in the brain, it would compensate for the missing signals from your numb finger and perceive pain anyhow if it was being operated on, just like an optical illusion compensates for paradoxical inputs with a sensory simulation. How could the brain compendsate for missing sensory signals? If it could do that it would be a kind of telepathy and we would not need sense organs. Perception occurs in the brain since you can have perception without sense data, as in dreams and hallucinations, but cutting the optic nerves causes blindness even though the eyes may be functioning normally. that could be the case now: you could be completely blind, deaf, lacking in emotion but you behave normally and don't realise that anything is wrong. Please think about this paragraph carefully before replying to it - it is essentially the whole argument and you seem to have misunderstood it. I have thought about it many times. Like 25 years ago. It's the reductio ad absurdum of materialism. You can't seem to let go of the idea that perception is perception whether it happens completely within your own dreamworld, through the tailpipe of some computerized lawnmower, or a crystal clear presentation of external realities. It. makes. no. difference. Having a thought, any thought, any experience whatsoever and being aware of that fact is consciousness. Period. It doesn't matter if you have a brain or not, or what other people observe of your behavior. Unless you are talking about a medical definition of being conscious as far as exhibiting signs of responsive to the outside world, which is something else entirely. That would only be relevant for something which we assume to be capable of consciousness in the first place. I'm talking about subjective experience, perceptions, qualia, understanding, feelings. These things cannot be observed from
Re: Simulated Brains
Dear Steohen and Craig: I would apply my response to Stathis to your 'simulation': you can simulate whatever you )already) know about the substrate. Our knowledge is sporadic and skewed - fitted to the so far absorbed and adjusted knowledge we assumed, so we can 'simulate' incompletely. Best regards John Mikes On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote: The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or computational simulation of a system is the system itself. The fact that it is impossible to create a model of a weather system that can predict *all* of its future behavior does not equal to a proof that one cannot create an approximately accurate model of a weather system. One has to trade off accuracy for feasibility. I agree that's true, and by that definition, we can certainly make cybernetic systems which can approximate the appearance of consciousness in the eyes of most human clients of those systems for the scope of their intended purpose. To get beyond that level of accuracy, you may need to get down to the cellular, genetic, or molecular level, in which case it's not really worth the trouble of re- inventing life just to get a friendlier sounding voicemail. Craig So now you agree that a simulation of a brain at the molecular level would suffice to produce consciousness (although of course it would be much more efficient to actually use molecules instead of computationally simulating them). This would be a good reason to say 'no' to the doctor, since even though you could simulate the molecules and their interactions, quantum randomness would prevent you from controlling their interactions with the molecules in the rest of your brain. Bruno's argument would still go through, but the 'doctor' might have to replace not only your brain but a big chunk of the universe with which it interacts. However, most people who have read Tegmark's paper understand that the brain must be essentially classical as a computer and so a simulation, even one of molecules, could be quasi-classical, i.e. local. Brent Hi Brent, I wonder if you would make a friendly wager with me about the veracity of Tegmark's claims about the brain being essentially classical? I bet $1 US (payable via Paypal) that he is dead wrong *and* that the proof that the brain actively involves quantum phenomena that are discounted by Tegmark will emerge within two years. We already have evidence that the photosynthesis process in plants involves quantum coherence, there is an experiment being designed now to test the coherence in the retina of the human eye. http://www.ghuth.com/2010/02/**03/another-finding-of-quantum-** coherence-in-a-photosynthetic-**biological-system/http://www.ghuth.com/2010/02/03/another-finding-of-quantum-coherence-in-a-photosynthetic-biological-system/ http://www.ghuth.com/2011/04/**24/quantum-coherence-and-the-**retina/http://www.ghuth.com/2011/04/24/quantum-coherence-and-the-retina/ As to your post here. Craig's point is that the simulated brain, even if simulated down to the molecular level, will only be a simulation and 'think simulate thoughts'. If said simulated brain has a consiousness it will be its own, not that some other brain. A consciousness can no more be copied than the state of a QM system. 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: bruno list
Craig, Brent decries: * That's the crux of the argument. Do you suppose that if I were ** decomposed in my constituent atoms I would still feel? * Whereupon you answer professionally. Not with the question What is FEEL??? Nor with the retribution that we are not composed of 'atoms' ONLY - so why should these hypothetical ingredients do something like 'feeling'? Brent continues more reasonably about organized matter (still figmentous) - while you seem to return to the figments with some *sensorimoive electromagnetism - *part of the subjective physical world. Your '*information does not physically exist'* makes 'sense' to me, although I wonder where the 'adult' and 'human' came in to parse(?). To your last par: I wonder if our explanatory figment atom holds water in a wider sense. After 1/2 c in productive polymer chemical RD I wonder if I spent that time in a (chemical) Alice's Wunderland? Also information' is pretty flexible. It should refer to 'relations'. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Aug 6, 2:20 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/6/2011 6:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 2. Consciousness isn't a special logical design that turns inanimate objects and circuits into something that can feel. Matter feels already - or detects/reacts. Consciousness is just the same principle run through multiple organic elaborations so that it feels as the interior of an organism rather than just the interior of cells or molecules. It scales up. That's the crux of the argument. Do you suppose that if I were decomposed in my constituent atoms I would still feel? You wouldn't feel, but neither would something in your shape feel if it were composed of ping pong balls. The fundamental unit has to be something with the potential to build it's existing nature into feeling. If you are knocked unconscious you stop feeling, but your brain continues to make sense of itself and bring itself back into a condition where you will become conscious again, assuming the damage doesn't prohibit that. The matter is, ex hypothesi, the same. It seems pretty clear to me that it is not the matter per se that feels, it is the organized matter. So what is it about the organization that results in qualia? It's both. The relationship between the matter and it's organization results in sensorimotive electromagnetism, which is subjectively experienced as compacted qualia and objectively computed as discrete quantitative relationships. One pluasible answer is that it is the way the organized matter (e.g. a neuron or a brain or a computer) processes information. Right, but you have it inside out. Information is an abstraction, so saying that qualia is the way that organized matter processes information is like saying that singing is the way that the vocal chords process nouns and verbs. Information does not physically exist. It's an intellectual construct requiring adult human sanity to parse. Matter feels and makes sense, sense makes sense out of itself as information. That it is just a property of the matter is not plausible, since disorganized matter behaves much more simply. Elements could not have different exclusive properties if there weren't an inherent ability to participate in a larger organization. Not all elements can be configured into the same molecules. Simple or not, disorganized matter can't be made into whatever organization that you'd like, and likewise, all abstract organizations are not equivalent to material identities. Craig http://s33light.org -- 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: bruno list
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/6/2011 8:35 AM, John Mikes wrote: Stasthis, let me barge in with one fundamental - not dispersing my reply into those (many and long) details: As I read your comments/replies (and I agree with your position within the limits I want to expose here), I have the feeling that you agree with the rest of the combatants in considering 'the brain', our idea about 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' as complete and total. I argue that it is not. Upon historic reminiscence all such inventory about these (and many more) concepts has been growing by addition and by phasing out imaginary 'content' as we 'learn', - an ongoing process that does not seem to have reached the ultimate end/completion. So you are right in considering whatever we new yesterday (my substitution for today) but not including what we may know tomorrow. Drawing conclusions upon incomplete inventory does not seem acceptable. Regards John Mikes If we wait until we know everything, we'll never draw any conclusion; which is OK for science. But for engineering we need to make decisions. Brent Brent: this is fine, we just should not mix up engineering with science: My science is the agnostic decision that we CANNOT know everything and feel comfortably in it. Also in my past engineering I made decisions but never pretended them to be scientific results. Thanks for the remark John -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Dear benjamin if this is your name (benjayk?) if the unsigned text is yours, of course: I believe this post is not 'joining' the chorus of the debate. Or is it? Benjayk wrote: *Consciousness is simply a given* OK, if you just disclose ANYTHING about it as you formulate that 'given'. Your(?) logic seems alright that if it is 'originated' upon numbers then the * 'consciousness-based' *numbers are a consequence of a consequence (or prerequisite to a prerequisite). I am not decrying the 'origin' of consciousness, rather its entire concept - what it may contain, include, act with, by, for, result in, - or else we may not even know about today.. Then I may stipulate about an origin for it. * ---EXISTS?---* as WHAT? I volunteered on many discussion lists a defining generalization:* response to relations, * (originally: *to information*, which turned out to be a loose cannon). In such general view it is not restricted to animates, in-animates, physical objects, ideas, or more, since the 'relations' are quite ubiquitous even beyond the limited circle of our knowledge. In such sense:* it exists*, indeed. Not (according to me) in *THOSE *systems, but everywhere. John M (PS please excuse me if I pond on open doors in a discussion the ~100 long posts of which I barely studied. I wanted to keep out and just could not control my mouse. JM) On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Frankly I am a bit tired of this debate (to some extent debating in general), so I will not respond in detail any time soon (if at all). Don't take it as total disinterest, I found our exchange very interesting, I am just not in the mood at the moment to discuss complex topics at length. Bruno Marchal wrote: Then computer science provides a theory of consciousness, and explains how consciousness emerges from numbers, How can consciousness be shown to emerge from numbers when it is already assumed at the start? It's a bit like assuming A, and because B-A is true if A is true, we can claim for any B that B is the reason that A true. Consciousness is simply a given. Every explanation of it will just express what it is and will not determine its origin, as its origin would need to be independent of it / prior to it, but could never be known to be prior to it, as this would already require consciousness. The only question is what systems are able to express that consciousness exists, and what place consciousness has in those systems. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: And in that sense, comp provides, I think, the first coherent picture of almost everything, from God (oops!) to qualia, quanta included, and this by assuming only seven arithmetical axioms. I tend to agree. But it's coherent picture of everything includes the possibility of infinitely many more powerful theories. Theoretically it may be possible to represent every such theory with arithmetic - but then we can represent every arithmetical statement with just one symbol and an encoding scheme, still we wouldn't call . a theory of everything. So it's not THE theory of everything, but *a* theory of everything. Not really. Once you assume comp, the numbers (or equivalent) are enough, and very simple (despite mysterious). They are enough, but they are not the only way to make a theory of everything. As you say, we can use everything as powerful as numbers, so there is an infinity of different formulations of theories of everything. For any theory, you have infinities of equivalent formulations. This is not a defect. What is amazing is that they can be very different (like cellular automata, LISP, addition+multiplication on natural numbers, quantum topology, billiard balls, etc. I agree. It's just that in my view the fact that they can be very different makes them ultimately different theories, only theories about the same thing. Different theories may explain the same thing, but in practice, they may vary in their efficiency to explain it, so it makes sense to treat them as different theories. In theory, even one symbol can represent every statement in any language, but still it's not as powerful as the language it represents. Similarily if you use just natural numbers as a TOE, you won't be able to directly express important concepts like dimensionality. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32209984.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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
