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
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?
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
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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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
: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
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
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
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
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
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
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
. 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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
.
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
:* 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
.
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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)
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
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,
' 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
, 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
) 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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
*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
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
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
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
' 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
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
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
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
, 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
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
' - 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
, 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
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
*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
, 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
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
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
:
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
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
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
:[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
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
-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
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
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
(!) 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
601 - 700 of 1087 matches
Mail list logo
