:* 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
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
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
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,
. 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
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
...@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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: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
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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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
'
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
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
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 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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
Brent:
***But no matter how smart I make it, it won't experience lust.*
*
*
1. lust is not the universal criterion that makes us human, it is only
one of our humanly circumscribed paraphernalia we apply in HUMAN thinking
and HUMAN complexity with HUMAN language. Can you apply a similar criterion
Brent: I stopped short (but violated this rule many times ) from arguing
against the fallacies included in the age-old 'religious' belief systems.
The reason: one irate response took me to task: who gave me superiority
over HIS (and other's) belief? He was hurt and I don't like to hurt
people.
Let us start at the end: David's conclusion upon Brent's ()remark:
...
* The advantage of
looking at a circle of 'reductions'
NUMBERS - MACHINE DREAMS - PHYSICAL - HUMANS - PHYSICS - NUMBERS.
is that it cautions one against this kind fundamentalism. Shall we take
- consequently those
ingredients have to be 'alive' = having that darn 'life' in them to go on
with it).
So I do not see an answer to my question in your reply. Try again?
John M
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:11 AM, John
Brent - REPRODUCTION - in our 'biology' there is only one strain that
reproduces: the prokaryotes by mitosis. In most(?) heterosex procreation
you take TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES and by combining some products of them you
CREATE a third one, not identical to any of the procreating parents.
'?
Mules don't constitute life - no, mules constitute animals - a transition
between a horse and an ass. Both rife with life - except for the progeny?
JM
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/23/2013 11:49 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent - REPRODUCTION - in our
Bruno wrote: of Whom? Conscious applies to person and they all have some
I, even if they cannot be sure what it is, and perceive it in many ways.
Here I am again in the dichotomy with Brent about 'alive' and 'life':
'conscious' and 'consciousness'! I arrived at the latter as response to
relations
Dear Russell,
(some computer-glitch prevented this post to arrive at the list for an
automatically included additional addressee's rejection yesterday.)
the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book
(posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his
Telmo:
would you have (by any chance...) a brief identification of something that
comes to your mind when speaking about l i f e ? (And please, forget
about thebio of this Earthbound Terrestrial Biosphere).
(To identify live is a bit easier I think.)
John M
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 8:46
John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
4:00 PM (8 minutes ago)
to everything-list
Dear Russell,
the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book
(posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his 1952
image when his idea started to eliminate the differences of QM
Dear Russell,
the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book
(posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his 1952
image when his idea started to eliminate the differences of QM and
Relativity...
I have a - sort of - high level science-reportage: by
, not in religions (theology, yours included), not in philosophy.
Thanks to the List for contribution to my staying sane.
John Mikes
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 20:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I
Dear Craig: a beautifully crafted post.
In my opinion the 'gap' is between what we (think we) know and what we
don't (even think we know). I tried so many times examples for such
gap-ideas by looking back 500, 1000, 3000 etc. years and compare it with
our present info-status (pls! do not mix my
to yesterday's knowledge base.
Thanks for reflecting
John M
(
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 05:42:45PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Russell,
based on my 2-decade long reading of your posts I have
such artificially. Maybe a
lot more difficult than identifying AI without a clear definition of I).
John Mikes
--
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
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into
them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and
their
, hate, pain, etc. HOW???
Electrically, of course. What is that 'electricity'? maybe a certain aspect
of a motive-transductor beyond our kowledge. The part of it what our
instruments - 'physical(?)' figments can explain and measure. And we
happily calculate it.
John Mikes
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013
mentality has no
such borderlines. Did anybody compare the free flowing human fantasy with
an unrestricted comparative power of programmed items?
Our 'free flowing' fantasy is still based on the 'model' of today's
knowledge about the world as we know it.
Agnostically yours
John Mikes
--
You
rules between conscious and its noun
(-ness). Both may be related to the 'inventory' we know of.
JM
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 9:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted
on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical
World into the inventory.
We spend too much time on items of our fictions we indeed do not know much
about. We even get Nobel prizes for them. (Not me).
Then comes a religious indoctrination and steals the list.
John Mikes
On Fri
John, adding to the clatter? Who does what? Wants? What???
If somebody has sweet dreams, let him dream.
JM
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:00 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God doesn't necessarily want *us* to do
Nobody raised the point that we are living in the aura of some obsolete
dream about a world that is long gone and 'apply' the same words to
regulate our lives in an advanced (completely changed) world (system) 2-300
years later. The world changed.
We are obsolete.
Nobody 'owns' NATURE, the
Brent wrote:
*But it's not the only life-after-death card. In fact Christianity
borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism: final battle, good over evil,
judgement day, punishment of the wicked. BUT the punishment wasn't eternal
and everybody gets to heaven eventually and nobody has to get crucified.*
How can an otherwise well educated and smart person write such stupidity?
Capitalism creates wealth out of the sweat of the expolited and enslaved
workforce they (the capitalists) keep on an economical/political leash.
MONEY does not grow on trees.
Doctor, you should know better!
Dr. phil - D.Sc.
...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John,
On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote:
After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at
the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target
it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject
After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at the
'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target it
with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to the
'founders' benefit of enslaving the rest of the people into their rule.
I happen to read the intro summary of the e-book (annonced on another list):
*Scientific Hinduism*:
Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual-Aspect Monism
(Dvi-Pak?a Advaita)
*By Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal*
(Vision Research Institute, 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 and
428 Great
Evgeniy, - this is not my table. Not that I disagree with Everett in his
MWI of SIMILAR (identical) universes: I do. My MWI consists of
*universes*(complexities, in MY 'Plenitude'-narrative - what I never
called 'theory')
by occasionally found ingredients with uncontrolled qualia -
haphazardously,
,
not even restrictd to (other) life-creatures).
John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc.
(I never try to impress with my doctorates).
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
For some time, I have been trying to contact you to inform you
that
consciousness = subject + object
Bruno I admire you for responding to everything, no matter how irrelevant.
Have a pleasant summer
John
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jun 2013, at 03:26, Roger Clough wrote:
Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is
Let me interject in *-*marked *BOLD ITALICS* lines into the texts of the
posts below
John M
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2013, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote:
There's still a free version of PGP available as GnuGP. But people
generally don't
Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
JM
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote:
Brent: thanx for the text, I downloaded it and still read it. Interesting.
Fun:
it says about math objects that they are abstract. (e.g. No 3) In Hungary
children are taught that an abstract means:non tangible, e.i. not touchable
by bare hands (Hungarian has a better such expression). Jokingly:
You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with imaginary
oranges. Anything 'could be'. Question: would such anything be topic for
this physicalist-based conventional EVERYTHING List?
Q-2: are OUR colors defined for different physical circumstances as well?
BTW - IMO flying is not
Stephen:
I tried. I have difficulty in following fast talking videos in general,
wouold appreciate to have it as URL somewhere.
John Mikes
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
For your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature
Brent wrote (I wish I knew TO whom):
Why not? It acts on the temperature.
Acts? remember my proposed definition for Ccness:
Response to relations (like: temperature).
We are deeply in a semantic fit.
I don't think you wanted to argue with me - just clarifying.
JM
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at
with proof.
*
But the Löbian point is that proof, even when correct, are falsifiable.
Why, because we might dream, even of a falsification.
On 01 Jun 2013, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote:
* And that's about where I left it - years ago.*
*...*
Interesting difference between 'scientific
Brent,
thanks for your clear ideas - not controversial to what I try to explain in
my poor wordings.
No proof is valid, or true. Applicable, maybe.
In our 'makebilieve' world-model many facets SEEM true in our terms of
explanation, i.e. using conventional science and wisdom. Mathematicians are
at 2:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/28/2013 11:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2013, at 19:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2013, at 01:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/27/2013 2:18 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
do you indeed
and go fishing.
John Mikes
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from
experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human
animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical
M
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/27/2013 2:18 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
do you indeed exclude the other animals from being selfconcious? or -
having a logic on their own level? Or any other trait we assign (identify?)
for humans - in our terms
Bruno:
do you indeed exclude the other animals from being selfconcious? or -
having a logic on their own level? Or any other trait we assign (identify?)
for humans - in our terms?
A question about plants (rather: about being conscious):
you may feel free to define 'being conscious' in human
the deaths of these creatures.
Saibal
Citeren John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Russell and Richard:
do you indeed MEAN those conditions recalled after crises as NEAR DEATH?
Who knows what DEATH feels like? (- if it feels at all). Death is
a-temporal in the sense we use it, also a-spatial, so
Russell: if I may I inject some remarks ([?])into your post-text
John M
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
My guess is that his primary concern is to develop the medical
technology to resuscitate patients in critical conditions - ie by
lowering the
Russell and Richard:
do you indeed MEAN those conditions recalled after crises as NEAR DEATH?
Who knows what DEATH feels like? (- if it feels at all). Death is
a-temporal in the sense we use it, also a-spatial, so nothing can be near
it in either sense.
The dissolution of the 'living' complexity
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.05.2013 17:41 Telmo Menezes said the following:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
Recently I have listened to a nice talk
Brent: this back-and-forth is a marvelous game to go crazy.
If I weren't me who else would be me and who whould I be?
(Only for the IRS!) It points to me at those stupid sci-fi-s about
transportation to Moskow/etc. - or another Universe, and 'living there' -
am I still myself? No way. If I 'live'
Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about that.
only things that happen without our - so
sources of laughter.
My agnosticism is leaning on my successful 38 patents in conventional
polymer technology. I developed questions.
I did not inform you about these facts to trigger more of your time for my
thoughts.
John Mikes
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote
works well with some mishaps and some later
corrections).
After 1/2 century successfully working within it I arrived at my agnostic
stance. Believe it, or not, we still hve novelties to get by and they may
change our as-(pre-)sumptions.
John Mikes
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Clark johnkcl
of
consciousness).
John Mikes
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
To make a AI by reverse engineering it would be enough to have a map of
how information flows in the brain,
I'd say
terms) as the response to relations
in that 'infinite complexity'.
Thanks for providing the opportunity to think about these definitions. I
may improve on them and would be glad to do so.
John Mikes
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 May 2013, at 17
Never argue with a logician!
I try to insert some re-remarks into ''-induced lines below
John
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 May 2013, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno asked:* are you OK with this?* - NO, I am not OK:
as I follow, 0
(mess?).
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/1/2013 12:34 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys)
temporary explanatory 'understanding
principles.*
*
*
That's a practicality and very fortunate. Does not enlighten the problem of
what 'numbers' may be, if not quantifiers.
JOhn
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 May 2013, at 22:09, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno asked why I have problems how
Telmo:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys)
temporary explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got. So are the
reasons for 'dacay' taken from the limited access we have so far.
- The rest of it goes
, which means only the existence) and branching
into 5 (as fingers, as in pentaton music) already as 'many'.
I still have no idea what description could fit *'number'* in Bruno's usage
(I did not study number - theory - to keep my common sense (agnostic?)
thinking free).
John Mikes
--
You received
, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
And what good does it do to H A V E nations? Starting wars? Looking
down
on every other nation? Exploiting strangers/foreigners?
Nationalism is a pest in the human world.
You are right saying that it is - sort of - a religious aberration,
closely
Dear Stathis and Bruno,
Stathis' reply is commendable, with one excessive word:
r e a l . I asked Bruno several times to 'identify' the term
'number' in common-sense language. So far I did not understand such (my
mistake?) I still hold *'numbers'* as the product of human thinking which
with the 'faithful' since one asked me (on
another list): who gave you the audacity to believe to be superior to our
ways? I am no missionary, don't want to convert, or transform (even hurt?)
anybody.
Regards
John Mikes
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote
And what good does it do to H A V E nations? Starting wars? Looking down
on every other nation? Exploiting strangers/foreigners?
Nationalism is a pest in the human world.
You are right saying that it is - sort of - a religious aberration, closely
connected with religion itself. So the
Brent and Bruno:
*Brent* I love you for your scientific self-consciousness:
*I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution.*
That's the 'end' of all. Religions like it.
Here is what I see as the (hard problem) problem: people like to think in
the mind-body restriction, as
Evgeniy: although I had my disagreements with Stuart dating back to prior
to the 1997 Nashua Conference, I have to agree here.
Turing was a great mind, his ideas leading to our (embryonic, binary)
computing machine are great, it is not the ultimate word.
I wonder how much Bruno's (Loeb's)
a lot of them since our knowledge is restricted (growing(?) over the
millennia with no assurance to reach 'them all'). We don't even know WHAT
items(?) exercise relations in the infinite complexity (which is beyond our
capabilities to learn).
Agnostically yours
John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc.
On Thu, Apr 18
Stathis, forgive me if I expect better from you.
* Parrots can speak too.
But they lack the genes encoding for a brain capable of human level
speech, regardless of the environment.*
*
*
Can you fly like a parrot? or roar like a lion? We even have no good idea
how the ape-ancestor started to grow
Brent: I side with Bruno (whatever it is worth).
(And it doesn't comport with your own formula that knowledge = true
belief. My belief that there's a refrigerator in my kitchen *can be
true*without being certain.
Exactly.)
*Brent: Then you cannot assert that there is no knowledge in
'. Then we heard the explosions
passing us? i.e. coming from further and further.
John
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER
you wrote:
*...Some
401 - 500 of 1087 matches
Mail list logo
