Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
Bruno, things are starting to hang together in my new digital brain (bright yellow) you wrote the plan: --- A) UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) 1) I explain that if you are a machine, you are already immaterial. --- Fine. This thought is merely surprising and somewhat (strangely) satisfying. It doesn't affect the way I live my life, but it sure as hell gets me some funny looks from people when I try to explain it to them! Most people think I am identifying the self with the soul or the spirit or some other metaphysical conjecture that they have heard of from religion or from their grandmother. They simply do not buy it when I tell them that all of reality is like this - that the assumption of a primitive, primary material reality is probably a gross error of perception albeit quite an understandable one. People are so hoodwinked by appearances, by their senses. Somehow I still think we are *meant* to be fooled by appearances - although this thought may well be self-contradictory. It's a good thing I find most things quite unconvincing - including appearances and reality generally! I am always asking myself What is really going on here? Why are things THIS way, in particular? Why not some other way? I have always been like this. Some people find me quite annoying in this regard... - 2) Mechanism entails the existence of a subjective or first person indeterminacy or uncertainty. - In the sense that I cannot know who or what I am, BEING who or what I am. Correct? I would necessarily have to step outside my existence to do so - manifestly impossible, given the laws of physics (or simply given MEC/COMP). I would have to reboot from a different system; be a different entity in fact. Paradox Alert: Without a first person perspective there could be no third person perspectives anyway, isn't that correct? Why then doesn't some part of the first person uncertainty (ie my uncertainty about me) translate into 3rd person perspectives? Anything I might say or merely perceive about something or someone else is surely contaminated by my uncertainties...so, in the quest to know myself how can I trust the veracity of any knowledge that comes to me from outside? All knowledge comes via brains (wet, messy ones) and all of these brains are suffering the same uncertainties about their identity as I. Note, I am not a solipsist. Also, you cannot experience the experience that I experience and vice versa. Which is why I think art and music in particular are important revelations of the first person perspective. Music is an ATTEMPT to overcome first person indeterminacy by universalising certain qualia. Tchaikowsky expects you to BECOME Tchaikowsky when you listen to the first movement of his 6th Symphony. You suffer and agonise and die with him. It's a VR experience. Madonna just doesn't do this for me. However, new research has shown that reading the mind is literally possible. We can now assemble an image seen via an optical system transmitted only via the electrical impulses read in a brain system (NewScientist last ed.) Perhaps it is not too far from here to the thought that you and I might swap instantiations for a short time? Maybe it would be fun to think, walk, talk and act like Bruno Marchal, if only for 5 minutes. In fact, I would pay a princely sum to have that experience. In an age when some people will spend gazillions on a space tourist (virtual) reality experience, I would go for the Be Bruno for Five Minutes option long before I would want to see the globe from orbit - 3) The Universal Machine, the Universal Dovetailer and the reversal physics/bio-psycho-theo-whatever-logy. -- OK - so Abram has been impatient on this point but I guess I am ready too: On 23/12/2008, at 8:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Abram, On 23 Dec 2008, at 00:23, Abram Demski wrote: I think you are right in calling this view eliminative materialism. I am saying that the I is a convenient fiction. All right. It is a normal tendency for scientist. It is like wanting to see Platonia from outside. I always think of the Sydney Opera House as Platonia. You cannot predict how it looks on the outside if you are teleported into the foyer! Also, the Tardis of Doctor Who has a similar asymmetry between outside and inside view. Are you saying Platonia has no outside? The true inside of all outsides - just like the 1st person perspective, in fact. It is like deciding to believe only in the third person description view, abstracting away our experiences and subjectivity. Then the I, free-will, decisions, and eventually consciousness are explained ... away. Yes - and then, to make matters worse, we turn the whole morass of uncertainty over to the religionists who reify a
Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1
On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that is governed by rules and has a definite description. Then Church thesis entails it is not broader, unless you mean that the rules are not effective. I might be missing something here, but somebody please give an example of a system that is NOT governed by rules and possesses NO definite description. cheers, K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
The Precipice
The Day The Earth Stood Still - remake version in cinemas now Just saw it - at the very first session at 9.30 AM. This film is a whole lot better than the reviews make out and a whole lot better than I expected. Keanu Reeves is Keanu as usual and only acts with his left eyebrow, but this works for once, given the part (I had suspected this would be the case) Gort (the fearsome robot) is great but I reckon they didn't make enough of him. The ending is a bit trite and perfunctory but its a film that has such a powerful message that it needs to be plonked straight in the audience's lap quickly. The music has no chance to add anything to the noisy soundtrack, so Bernard Hermann's reputation is safe. I cannot remember anything about the music and I listened hard Some great script moments: Keanu Klaatu: Nothing ever dies. The universe wastes nothing. Things are only ever..transformed. I tried to reason with you. You treat the Earth the way you treat each other. John Cleese to Klaatu (cameo role as a physicist): Help us to change! We are at the precipice. At the precipice we can change. Perhaps faced with the ironclad guarantee of our extinction as a species we COULD do it? But we have to be forced to confront it by an intelligence far greater than our own. That's the movie's message. It's a little unfortunate in my view that the process of our extinction - in typical Hollywood fashion - is halted before it has completely run its course, so we get let off the hook and the sun rises again tomorrow on the human race, so it remains a mere conjecture that we can change. In the original, the Earth's energy economy is halted for 24 hours as a demonstration of superior force which convinces us we have no other option. Weak. In this version, the extinction process is commenced (using matter- eating quantum nano-bugs that self-replicate at an impossibly fast rate, becoming a tornado that whips around the world) and this process looks set to wipe out humans and their structures in a couple of hours at most. Keanu Klaatu - for some unbelievably treacly, sentimental Hollywood non-reason becomes convinced at the last moment that humans may be capable of change after all and calls a halt to the process and goes home in his beaut glowing orb. THEN all the power goes off. So we are left with a three-quarters- destroyed civilisation and no energy economy. We are hunter-gatherers once again. Even though it comes across as a bit unconvincing in the movie, the concept is stronger than in the original because rather than leave Gort behind to keep an eye on things after the lights come back on, the lights NEVER come back on, so we don't HAVE the option to misbehave any longer. Strong. Take a break from your computer keyboards and get into the fresh air - of a dark cinema! cheers, K A thought once thought cannot be unthought - Edward de Bono It is impossible to delete information from this universe - Wei Dai Email: kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1
On 28/12/2008, at 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With Everett everything becomes clearer: nature does not collapse the wave, and thus, does not provide any examples of a machine generating truly random events. Randomness appears in the mind of the multiplied observers, exactly like in the mechanical self-duplication experience. That is why Everett and comp fits so well together. Here I feel I finally understand the kernel of comp. The outcome of any measurement is always subject to the 1 indeterminacy, which we read as random In fact random is itself a product of OUR unavoidable uncertainty, non? TRUE random would admit the white rabbits; like the dice disappearing after we throw them Of course Everett could be wrong, and comp could be wrong, and naturalism could be right: but it is up to the naturalist to say what is the machine's atomic operation that a Turing machine cannot complete. If it is the generation of a truly random event, and if this is based on the wave collapse, then I can understand (but you will have to solve all the problem raised by the collapse, you will have to abandon the theory of relativity like Bohm and Bell suggested, etc.). Or you say like Searle that only special machine can think: biological brain. If Searle (and Penrose) are right, then why not a simple biological brain transplant? Why bother with looking for the right substitution level at all in this case? Just pilfer a wet, messy brain from a road accident victim and shove it into your skull. But where would we now stand with respect to the indeterminacy? I asked my partner today whether she felt she would be the same person after receiving a biological brain transplant and she said Of course not! I would now be the dead person whose brain I have inherited. Who I am is generated only by MY brain. Proves she is a materialist/ physicalist, I guess. We all know people like this. Sigh. I then asked her if she would feel herself to be the same person after a digi-brain transplant. She responded that this was maybe possible, but she felt dubious about it. Would there in fact be any difference? After all, we are assuming that wet, messy brains and digi-brains are equivalent, all things considered? In that case we have to suppose something very special about the brain: it generates consciousness. This made me laugh out loud. I just love it when you say things like this. Perhaps we must give up on the notion that personhood has anything at all to do with a brain? But this is just a blocking argument: it could be interesting only if it points on something special in the brain that a digital machine cannot imitate. Without such specification it is just equivalent with the *assumption* that the brain is not a digital machine. Enter the soul, enter religion - enter the supernatural. Hummmph!! cheers, K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.2 and 2.3
On 31/12/2008, at 5:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Dec 2008, at 02:22, Kim Jones wrote: I am good to go! I suspect this is not english :) It isn't. It's American ;-) (ducks quickly, like George Bush the other day and the shoes) Military talk - if you have seen the movie Contact (based on Carl Sagan's novel of the same name) the character Ellie Arroway (played by the superlative Jodie Foster) says this many times as she sits inside the Machine - the teleporter or whatever that purportedly sends her to Vega. There is great doubt in the minds of the controllers outside the machine that it will work properly but she affirms her deep conviction that the voyage should be undertaken in this fashion as they continually check in with her during the launch countdown. See it if you haven't already - a truly inspirational sci-fi (novel and film). Also has a lot to say about the interface of science and religion. Are you a Sagan freak? I miss Carl sorely... Have teleported it to my screen... You should print it and put it in your kitchen or toilet, and put a big red cross on each step you understand well, so that your partner can see your progress. Well this is just basic self elementary encouragement tricks. Never mind. Good idea. Given that she is ahead of me without even studying any of this stuff, maybe SHE should put the big red cross on each step when she is happy with my progress! Of course Everett could be wrong, and comp could be wrong, and naturalism could be right: but it is up to the naturalist to say what is the machine's atomic operation that a Turing machine cannot complete. If it is the generation of a truly random event, and if this is based on the wave collapse, then I can understand (but you will have to solve all the problem raised by the collapse, you will have to abandon the theory of relativity like Bohm and Bell suggested, etc.). Or you say like Searle that only special machine can think: biological brain. If Searle (and Penrose) are right, then why not a simple biological brain transplant? Why bother with looking for the right substitution level at all in this case? Just pilfer a wet, messy brain from a road accident victim and shove it into your skull. But where would we now stand with respect to the indeterminacy? I asked my partner today whether she felt she would be the same person after receiving a biological brain transplant and she said Of course not! I would now be the dead person whose brain I have inherited. Who I am is generated only by MY brain. Proves she is a materialist/ physicalist, I guess. We all know people like this. Sigh. Ah gosh Kim, be careful or add enough smileys when you do jokes. OK - will use emoticons from now on - I promise! (I am very slack here, agreed, but then - as you now know - the Everything List Court Jester reserves the right to lace a lot of his discourse with humour! What are court jesters for, after all? Smilies ultimately weaken the power of the humour, just like in (a good many but by no means all) Hollywood films where the moral of the story is ALWAYS given at the end in case the audience was too dumb or too drunk to follow the discourse and its implications. There appears to me to be a certain point in leaving the listener to wonder whether it was a joke or not - this, for me, is the 'serious' aspect of humour, that I have alluded to in the past - if that isn't too self-contradictory. Comes of being a composer (of music) - an aesthete. I like to occasionally trick the audience or test their ability to view something from an unexpected perspective (maybe not the best thing to do with scientists, mathematicians and logicians!). Example: in the second movement of Sir William Walton's 1st Symphony (Scherzo, con Malizia) I say that there is much malicious use of musical humour but some do not get this when they hear it. As if the composer's own use of con malizia to describe the mood and tempo of his piece does not already provide an external clue... but musical humour is hard for many to appreciate, particularly as here - in a symphony; an instrumental composition where there are no words being sung to explain the accompanying music. There is no musical equivalent of the emoticon because ALL of music is an emotional con job - much poetry is the same - would you ask Shakespeare to use smilies? ;-D OK - we are doing serious explanatory work here so I will cut back on the cryptic stuff To get back on-topic: Actually I wasn't joking! Sorry to be an inconsistent machine (or more likely just a momentarily confused and chatty one). Up to now I felt that the basis of MEC was the existence of the substitution level which allows that all body parts, indeed anything immaterial is simulable. Consciousness itself is not simulable as you say; because consciousness is not even yet immaterial
Re: KIM 2.2 and 2.3
On 01/01/2009, at 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have also a theory according to which british humour is obtined by taking classical logic seriously enough. The comical effect comes from the fact that in the real work classical logic NEVER works. The Court Jester's First Law: Correlation between what is supposed to happen and what actually happens decreases in direct proportion to the complexity of one's expectations about it. (not a joke!) The Court Jester's Second Law: Each day the world comes more and more to resemble television. (could be a joke...) cheers, K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Smolin's View of Time
Edge Question 2009: What Will Change Everything? http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html#smolin What do we think about this? Smolin seems to disagree with most of what we are on about on this list. My mind remains open in all directions, particularly as Smolin appears to be enjoying substantial advances in his field of Quantum Gravitation. Does his argument about time have legs? Maybe we can get him back on this list to talk to us if we yell loud enough in his direction... regards, Kim LEE SMOLIN Physicist, Perimeter Institute; Author, The Trouble With Physics THE LIBERATION OF TIME I would like to describe a change in viewpoint, which I believe will alter how we think about everything from the most abstract questions on the nature of truth to the most concrete questions in our daily lives. This change comes from the deepest and most difficult problems facing contemporary science: those having to do with the nature of time. The problem of time confronts us at every key juncture in fundamental physics: What was the big bang and could something have come before it? What is the nature of quantum physics and how does it unify with relativity theory? Why are the laws of physics we observe the true laws, rather than other possible laws? Might the laws have evolved from different laws in the past? After a lot of discussion and argument, it is becoming clear to me that these key questions in fundamental physics come down to a very simple choice, having to do with the answers to two simple questions: What is real? And what is true? Many philosophies and religions offer answers to these questions, and most give the same answer: reality and truth transcend time. If something is real, it has a reality which continues forever, and if something is true, it is not just true now, it was always true, and will always be. The experience we have of the world existing within a flow of time is, according to some religions and many contemporary physicists and philosophers, an illusion. Behind that illusion is a timeless reality, in modern parlance, the block universe. Another manifestation of this ancient view is the currently popular idea that time is an emergent quality not present in the fundamental formulation of physics. The new viewpoint is the direct opposite. It asserts that what is real is only what is real in the moment, which is one of a succession of moments. It is the same for truth: what is true is only what is true in the moment. There are no transcendent, timeless truths. There is also no past. The past only lives as part of the present, to the extent that it gives us evidence of past events. And the future is not yet real, which means that it is open and full of possibilities, only a small set of which will be realized. Nor, on this view, is there any possibility of other universes. All that exists must be part of this universe, which we find ourselves in, at this moment. This view changes everything, beginning with how we think of mathematics. On this view there can be no timeless, Platonic, realm of mathematical objects. The truths of mathematics, once discovered, are certainly objective. But mathematical systems have to be invented-or evoked- by us. Once brought into being, there are an infinite number of facts which are true about mathematical objects, which further investigation might discover. There are an infinite number of possible axiomatic systems that we might so evoke and explore-but the fact that different people will agree on what has been shown about them does not imply that they existed, before we evoked them. I used to think that the goal of physics was the discovery of a timeless mathematical equation that was isomorphic to the history of the universe. But if there is no Platonic realm of timeless mathematical object, this is just a fantasy. Science is then only about what we can discover is true in the one real universe we find ourselves in. More specifically, this view challenges how we think about cosmology. It opens up new ways to approach the deepest questions, such as why the laws we observe are true, and not others, and what determined the initial conditions of the universe. The philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce wrote in 1893 that the only way of accounting for which laws were true would be through a mechanics of evolution, and I believe this remains true today. But the evolution of laws requires time to be real. Furthermore, there is, I believe, evidence on technical grounds that the correct formulations of quantum gravity and cosmology will require the postulate that time is real and fundamental. But the implications of this view will be far broader. For example, in neoclassical, economic theory, which is anchored in the study of equilibria of markets and games, time is largely abstracted away. The fundamental results on equilibria by Arrow
Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Bruno, In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience) the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary transmission interval) has elapsed between my annihilation and reconstitution on Mars. The same thing will now happen to one of me in the duplication-plus-delay in Step 4. Essentially, Step 4 is identical to Step 2 with duplication as the only added feature. We cannot attribute a measure to my 1-pov in either step because the outcome is truly random. Here I would merely like to ask, random to whom? Doesn't random mean that no conscious mind (mine or yours) can see the determinism behind it? We are tempted to say probability 1/2 but that is only a comp- style bet. You explained on this in Step 2: We see that the MEC hypothesis, generally considered as imposing a strong determinacy in nature, introduces on the contrary a form of strong indeterminacy. Even a God, or whatever possible Omniscient Being, cannot predict to you, before a duplication (of you) experiment, where you will feel to be after. If he told you you will feel to be the one in room A, the Kim in room A will say that such God was right, but the one in room B will know or believe that that God was wrong, and the point of MEC is that we have no reason to listen more to one Kim than to the other Kim. In particular the Kim of room A will not convince the Kim of room B, that God was right. No Kim will ever be able to convince its counterpart about any possible method of prediction for the particular future. This does not mean that nothing can be predicted. I want to grok this more. At this stage I can only believe you. I have always felt (with Einstein) that reality is fundamentally deterministic, even if we have to point to stochastic features along the way. I know you will be able to debunk this easily and to my (and Einstein's) satisfaction. Maybe dwell a little on this and then move on to Step 5 where you manage to email me to me. This is truly scary because here I meet myself. I recall with horror what Angier did about his double in The Prestige... Actually, I believe I have already met my double. Once, a man stopped outside my house and stroked my cat, which was on the verandah. I greeted him and he told me that he had a cat that looked exactly like my cat and that it was his dearest and most cherished friend (I feel much the same way about my cat). I then asked him what name he had given his cat. He told me Cindy Bingy. I think my mouth must have fallen open in shock because that is the name of my cat too. From memory, the man looked rather like me as well. He then walked off while I stood there wondering about the improbability of all this (I cannot remember whether cannabis was in my system at the time) regards, K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I admire too. Kim is courageous. Well, for the tenacity we will see :) Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my ability to sit and cogitate on Correct Machine Theology will be severely curtailed if I don't find a job soon. In the meantime, is there any chance of a bus slogan campaign: There Probably Is a Universal Dovetailer Computing All of Reality. Now, All Of You Theologians, Start Worrying and Start Studying Quantum Physics, Computationalism and Modal Logic. Perhaps we can get it down to something a bit shorter? cheers, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
On 10/01/2009, at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: The question is how is the simulated observer made conscious of the passage of (simulated) time. If you just look a momentary machine states, ignoring their causal/temporal relations, how will they create the consciousness of time in the simulated observer? Brent But does it make any difference whether the observer is simulated or not? I've been assuming all along that my reality might be a simulated one from your POV. You could (without me knowing for sure but perhaps suspecting it) be projecting my entire reality for my (and almost certainly, your) benefit. Without you fiddling the knobs and faders behind the scenes I don't even exist. Time exists where the conscious mind attributes or senses meaning. Because everything can ultimately be derived from everything else, it makes sense that time is like a kind of white noise of meaning of all perceived OMs. If that isn't too Shirley McLaine regards, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
On 18/01/2009, at 4:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: I have no doubt that digital mechanism and materialism are incompatible, though. Is that because, under materialism, consciousness depends on causal links? Brent supernatural causal links enter the hand wavers Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
On 19/01/2009, at 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 18-janv.-09, à 11:32, Kim Jones a écrit : On 18/01/2009, at 4:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: I have no doubt that digital mechanism and materialism are incompatible, though. Is that because, under materialism, consciousness depends on causal links? Brent supernatural causal links All right, if you define supernatural causal links by the natural relation existing among natural numbers (or other finite things). Assuming comp, of course. But Brent was momentarily speaking of materialism - materialism doesn't acknowledge any form of comp immateriality except according to the (probably) false mind/body dualism, where the mind is allowed to be an ethereal emanation of the brain. But that's not even immateriality in your specific sense - that's popular superstition. You've cured me of that. Mind is computation; matter is computation - consciousness is not unique in the sense of some special pleading that allows it to avoid Turing emulability. That natural supernatural is really super in the sense that, as a machine or number, we cannot prove or known all the relations from which physics and nature emerge or supervene on. Once comp is assumed this follows, yes. Kim, (and others) are you OK with the first person indeterminacy issue? I am happy to move on from this now. I cannot see how there can be a way of distinguishing any of my copies. Are you ok that, from a first person point of view, throwing a coin and self-duplication are identical or isomorphic experience? The two appear fundamentally the same process apart from the numbers of atoms involved And, do you agree that introducing delays does not change the expectations (the probabilities, or the credibilities) used for the first person indeterminacy? Discussion over the last few days points has circled around this; personally, I now accept that I only exist when my conscious mind is up and running. During delays in teleportation my conscious mind cannot run on any hardware so I have no way of experiencing the delay. In fact the delay makes no difference to the outcome from my perspective. In step 6 every consistent extension is now virtual but this makes no difference to my belief that I am the same person I was before teleportation since I anticipate a consistent extension and that is what I experience. All that the experiment has to do is match my expectations with a consistently logical and convincing reality and I am prepared every time to say This is real and this is happening to me despite delays, annihilated originals, virtual renderings etc. As long as I am convinced by the environment I find myself in, I am prepared to bet that it is causally connected to the one (I experienced) before it - which I guess it would be even if it were an unconvincing low-res simulation. Take all you time, but if you can ask some question, it will help me to prepare the answer. If UDA1..6 is well understood, meaning that there is no more question, I will try to imagine a way to explain step 7, and this without getting in the mathematical details (if that is possible). This is the hard part! Still, I feel that I can intuit it. This is where you show how physics arises from number. Also how the Multiverse and MWI find their place in comp. I know that sometimes, things can seems so incomprehensible that people cannot even ask any question. Not incomprehensible - just counter-intuitive. It's a mind-boggling exercise and up to here I do not feel you are losing any explanatory power by cutting back on the maths. In that case, tell me know that it is too much incomprehensible, and it will be my duty to make things even more clearer until the ah ah (meaning I understand or I have find an error. Best, Bruno - I did get a brief case of the Ah Ah (meaning I understand) when I read this article recently: Our world may be a giant hologram - space - 15 January 2009 - New Scientist Surely the discovery of the graininess of spacetime adds weight to the physics/psychology reversal of comp? regards, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
On 21/01/2009, at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2009, at 13:56, Kim Jones wrote: But Brent was momentarily speaking of materialism - materialism doesn't acknowledge any form of comp immateriality except according to the (probably) false mind/body dualism, where the mind is allowed to be an ethereal emanation of the brain. But that's not even immateriality in your specific sense - that's popular superstition. You've cured me of that. Mind is computation; matter is computation - Actually this is an open problem. The point is that if mind is computation then matter is not necessarily computation, and a priori it is not computation. (Step 7 !) With comp we can take a very little ontology: just 0, 1, 2, 3, ... with their usual additive and multiplicative relations. This, then give rise automatically to a literally un-computably big first person an other-person epistemology. consciousness is not unique in the sense of some special pleading that allows it to avoid Turing emulability. OK. But keep in mind that consciousness is unique in the sense of knowing that it cannot know its Turing emulability level (yet can bet). Footnote - (parenthetical digression): I know the above thought is native to your schema, and up to here Penrose appears to agree with you. But, this very singular quality of consciousness (to not know its emulability level but to be able to bet on it - via the Bayesian probabilities detector that is the mind) is precisely the reason Penrose and Hammeroff have decided that the mind is NOT computation; because of the uncomputability of this issue. Why should the mind be limited to the computable? Clearly it is not. Could an AI conceive of Platonia? Now that would perhaps be to go one better than any Blade Runner-style Turing Test! For Penrose, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is enough to lock the door against the thought that the mind is limited to the algorithms of the computable. The mind, apparently, can understand things outside the realm of the computable. I guess it all depends on what you mean by understand. I would cite musical understanding as an example of something that cannot be computed. There is information that appears in the (listening) mind that cannot be deduced from the notes, the melodies, the harmonies, the rhythms etc. All of the mechanics of music are of course computable, but my subjective interaction with a particular musical discourse is (probably) not. I doubt that I am telling you anything you didn't already know... (snip) Our world may be a giant hologram - space - 15 January 2009 - New Scientist Very interesting! Thanks. If consciousness is gravity (the wave selector), as Penrose find plausible, the blurriness of the hologram could necessarily (asuming comp) prevent the observation of the gravitational waves, making them definitely undetectable. Just thinking aloud. Isn't this like the Turing lock-out with respect to truth and provability? We know the gravitational waves are there, but we can never directly detect them. Perhaps our knowing such a thing is non- computable? regards, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Star Larvae Hypothesis
http://www.starlarvae.org/index.html Talking up advanced theology!! The two-party system (evolution vs. intelligent design) is an obsolete paradigm. I could just about agree with that cheers, Kim --- Creativity usually means finding a way of being right by being wrong. Being right by being right is not creativity. It merely offers what is already understood. - Kim Jones Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@mac.com Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
On 22/01/2009, at 3:50 AM, Günther Greindl wrote: Kim, the uncomputability of this issue. Why should the mind be limited to the computable? Clearly it is not. So you deny Step 1 again? You say no to the doctor? In fact I have 'multiple personality disorder' - from Thursday to Monday I say 'Yes' to the doctor, on Tuesday and Wednesday I am no longer the same personality because my medications have run out ;-) Well, it's Thursday here now and I have a fresh supply of anxiety- suppression pills, so I'm off to see the Doctor again!! He's talking about this scary Step 7 and I am starting to get sweaty palms, so in a fit of madness I reached into the bookshelf and drew out a Penrose volume which seemed to suggest I might do better to have a cup of tea and a little sleep... Could an AI conceive of Platonia? Why not? Well, this particular AI which calls itself Kim can conceive of it, so I guess all other AIs couldunless there is a special class of AI that can only conceive of computables? Perhaps I should put Road to Reality back on the bookshelf for now! Bring on the advanced Theology loving it K Cheers, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
Bruno, I found this an incredibly moving reply. I also see clearly your points. I am glad to have given you an opportunity to state so clearly some profoundly important ideas. Thank you, and let's continue the voyage. I am glad that Penrose was wrong. But then, without somebody as perceptive as Penrose being wrong about things as important as this, your own light of understanding could perhaps not shine so brightly. If we were in Japan, I would now bow very low to you. Have a wonderful day, sensei! cheers, K On 22/01/2009, at 9:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2009, at 05:46, Kim Jones wrote: OK. But keep in mind that consciousness is unique in the sense of knowing that it cannot know its Turing emulability level (yet can bet). Footnote - (parenthetical digression): I know the above thought is native to your schema, and up to here Penrose appears to agree with you. Penrose has been wrong on this issue in its first book (The Emperor New clothes), and corrected it formally in the second book The Shadows of the Mind. But, he is still incorrect on his general conclusion drawn from Gödel. But, this very singular quality of consciousness (to not know its emulability level but to be able to bet on it - via the Bayesian probabilities detector that is the mind) is precisely the reason Penrose and Hammeroff have decided that the mind is NOT computation; because of the uncomputability of this issue. The fact that we cannot known which machine we are does not prevent us to be a machine, on the contrary. Note that Penrose and Hammeroff have split their mind on this issue. Indeed Penrose argues that we are not machine at all, where Hammeroff can conceive that we are quantum machine (and in that case comp is satisfied). In general the non computability argument is wrong because computationalism explains why many things ABOUT machines are not computable. The universal machine lives on the frontier between the computable and the non computable. Note that Penrose, Maudlin and me, do agree that mind and matter cannot be both computable. But for different reasons, and Penrose's one are not correct. Why should the mind be limited to the computable? This sentence is ambiguous. In a sense, the comp hyp. makes the mind computable (Turing-emulable), yet it does not necessarily limit the mind to the computable (angels can think!), nor does it prevents many manifestation of the mind to be completely not computable. We will have the opportunity to dig a bit more on this. By angel I mean a self-referential entity not emulable by a machine (this exists mathematically). Clearly it is not. Could an AI conceive of Platonia? ? Could *you* conceive of Platonia? If yes, then at least one AI can conceive of Platonia: you (assuming comp of course). Now that would perhaps be to go one better than any Blade Runner- style Turing Test! This address the question: could a machine convinces another that it conceives of Platonia. This asks for an infinite Turing test indeed. Well ... even a *big* infinity ... (depending on the precise sense you can give to conceive). For Penrose, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is enough to lock the door against the thought that the mind is limited to the algorithms of the computable. It is worse than that. Penrose believes that the mind needs an actual non computable components. His argument is just wrong. Many logicians have pinpoint on the mistakes made by Penrose. They are analog of the errors made by Lucas an half century before. Judson Webb wrote a formidable book on that issue (ref in the biblio of my Lille thesis). The mind, apparently, can understand things outside the realm of the computable. I guess it all depends on what you mean by understand. I would cite musical understanding as an example of something that cannot be computed. There is information that appears in the (listening) mind that cannot be deduced from the notes, the melodies, the harmonies, the rhythms etc. All of the mechanics of music are of course computable, but my subjective interaction with a particular musical discourse is (probably) not. Universal machines can grasp that there are many things that they cannot grasp. Penrose, like Lucas and the few people who still believe that Gödel incompleteness theorem does limit the power of machine, always forget that some machines can understand and prove that theorem, even about themselves. Godel's (incompleteness theorem) really shows how far a machine, betting on its own consistency, can study its own limitations. Soon or later, any correct universal machine discover that its physical world is a product of that productive ignorance, and this without going into solipsism. Our world may be a giant hologram - space - 15 January 2009 - New
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
On 24/01/2009, at 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Have you find the time to take a look on UN-16 UN-24 in http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume1CC/4z1_1sansp.pdf After all, you know some french, isn't it? Take it easy, I will explain all this to you, beginning from zero. Put the document above in a easily accessible place (virtual or real) so that I can point on the little drawings there. Je suis en traîne de lire et de digester entièrement cette thèse. Comme Johnny Mikes, j'apprécie beaucoup l'occasion de te lire en langue native! Peut-être demain je te poserai quelques questions sur la construction de l'ordinateur En attendant, je te conseille d'eviter le plus possible les cinglés à couteau qui menaçent amitiés, K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Quantum Teleportation Breakthrough
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090122141137.htm cheers, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem
On 31/01/2009, at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I've also tried to dig through both Bruno's thesis with the help of google translator. It works for a while but soon one hits a wall with a difficult sentence/paragraph which is hard to understand even if it stands as the author inteded - and extra hard to understand if its meaning is corrupted by the translation. Bruno, I'd love to read your thesis in english, but I fully understand how hard it must be to get a good translation that you would be happy with. At the end, it might be easier to start from scratch, take the essential from both thesis, update a little bit and write a book in english on your own directly. Is that an option for you? Bruno reads beautifully in French. I have offered to translate some of his stuff - the Brussels thesis is a wonderful read in French, I can't really understand the stuff about the construction of the computer because I have no background in computer science, but I can translate all the text into good, idiomatic English if I could generate some little income in the process. He has said The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions to me in the past, and I agree with him on that, also that publishing deals will benefit the publisher, not the author, but there are many people (me included) who love his stuff now and wish it could be presented to a wider audience. Failing that, a few of you might have to learn French, which would benefit your brain cells anyway. French is just English pronounced wrongly anyway ;-) K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Templeton Foundation
The Templeton Foundation gives sizeable grants to projects for reconciling science and religion, and awards a yearly prize of two million dollars to a philosopher or scientist whose work highlights the spiritual dimension of scientific progress. Go for it, Bruno! If Paul Davies can do it with a rather mediocre tome like The Mind of God - you will surely impress them with your machine theology - none of which they will understand, so it will surely command respect. Not a cynical suggestion; if the Templeton Foundation is anything beyond a perverse attempt to reward scientists who are prepared to say something nice about religion, then your setting this whole science/ religion (physical sciences/human sciences; whatever) house in order will surely be worth the two million. And then you would be obliged to write a book about it all that will show the materialist/atheists a thing or two! Hands up if you think Bruno should apply for a Templeton grant!!! With two million in his bank balance, he might even come out to Australia to visit me and Russell!!! What happened to Step 7, Doctor? warmest regards Kim Another annoying feature of the term metaphysics is that it has made it quasi-impossible for physicians to do metaphysics, since meta here has a sense corresponding to meta in metamathematics (the old name for Recursion Theory). Now, most physicians would argue (at least before the rise of the quantum) that such a meta-physics is simply physics. Which means: physicians, together with their laboratories and their libraries simply obey the laws of physics. OK, but when you say the same thing of quantum mechanics, you are now heading toward Everett and the Many-Worlds interpretation. Everett was the first serious meta-physician in that sense. Well, Galileo and Einstein (among others) also helped to prepare the terrain for this 'desanthropomorphisation' process. Embedding the subject into the object of study. Embedding the spectator in the spectacles, as the Hindu says. - Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Seventh Step (Preamble)
Bruno, our posts just crossed each other. I'm still here and listening and thinking hard. We are busy, as you say, but listening and thinking about the realities has to be part of that, so I ensure that I set aside time to follow your reasoning. I may translate part of the Brussels thesis soon and release on the list, just to prove that the act of translating is also the act of arriving at a compatible understanding of what i translate. You will tell me if I am any good at it and please be frank. Start with ZERO - it's more mysterious than 1 K On 05/02/2009, at 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Kim, Still interested? I must say I was wrong. I cannot explain to you the functioning of a computer without doing math. Orally, drawing on a black board, I would have been able to explain a big part of it, and simultaneously hiding the mathematics. But I realize now that even this would have been a bad idea and would have made things more difficult in the longer run, given the ambition of the project. After all, I am supposed to explain to you how, when we assume the comp hypothesis, the ultimate realities become mathematical in nature, even arithmetical or number theoretical. But how could I explain this to you without doing a bit of mathematics. Mathematics is a curious music that only the musicians can hear. Mathematicians play with instruments that only them can hear. To listen to a mathematician, you have to be a mathematician and play the instrument. Fortunately, all universal machine like you, are a mathematician, and when a human seems to feel he is not a mathematician, it just means the mathematician living within is a bit sleepy, for a reason or another. Especially that I am realizing that some people confuse a computation with a description of a computation, which are two very different mathematical objects (albeit relative one) existing in Platonia. This plays a key role in the articulation of the step seven with the step eight. It plays a key role to understand the computationalist supervenience thesis, and thus where the laws of physics come from, and of course it is strictly needed when ultimately we interview the universal Lobian machine. So, the time has come I cure your math anxiety, if you or some others are still interested. I can awake the mathematician in you (like I can awake the mathematician living in any universal entity, btw :). I propose we begin with the numbers, and, to keep our motivation straight, I propose we meditate a little bit on the distinction between numbers and descriptions of numbers, and notations for numbers. It is a bit like the difference between a symphony and a symphony's partition Given the importance of such distinction in the whole drama, it is worth to get those conceptual nuances clear right at the beginning. I really propose to you to begin math at zero. But now I am already stuck: should I explain first the number 1, or ... the number zero? A tricky one that number zero ... :) Best, Bruno PS I now you are busy. I propose we go at the minimum of your rhythm and mine. But I tell you that the poem is long. 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-l...@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Bruno's Brussels Thesis English Version Chap 1 (trial translation)
Trans. Kim Jones (extract only)
1.1 Mechanist Philosophies
1.1.1 Different types of Mechanism
I distinguish the following mechanist hypotheses:
BEHAVIOURIST MECHANISM
Some machines can behave as thinking beings (living, conscious etc.)
(BEH-MEC)
STRONG MECHANISM
Some machines can think (living beings, conscious beings, have a
private life etc.) (STR-MEC)
INDEXICAL MECHANISM
I am a machine (or - you are a machine, or again - human beings are
machines) (IND-MEC)
By replacing machine by digital machine one obtains the
corresponding digital theses.
The behaviourist digital mechanism BEH-DIG-MEC corresponds largely to
that of Turing in his 1950 article. In the same way, the strong
digital mechanism STR-DIG-MEC corresponds to what is called in the
literature the strong artificial intelligence thesis (strong AI).
In this work I am exclusively interested in indexical and digital
mechanism (IND-DIG-MEC or just IDM). Digitality necessitates
Church's Thesis, which is why the digital aspect is explained in its
turn in the second part. There, I will show how a procedure, due
essentially to Goedel, permits an indexical treatment of machines in
general.
Proposition:
IND-MEC = STR-MEC = BEH-MEC, and
BEH-MEC ≠ STR-MEC ≠ IND-MEC.
(with or without the hypothesis of digitality)
Reasoning: One admits that humans know how to think (conscious
beings, having private lives etc.) In this case IND-MEC entails STR-
MEC and STR-MEC entails BEH-MEC. That BEH-MEC does not entail STR-MEC
is supported by Weizenbaum (1976) (see also Gunderson {footnote 1}
1971). STR-MEC does not entail IND-MEC, since the fact that machines
are able to think does not entail that they alone are able to think.
It is conceivable that machines are able to think without we ourselves
being machines. Wang (1974) presents a similar reasoning.
Nevertheless, numerous philosophers make implicit use of an opposing
opinion: STR-MEC = IND-MEC, see for example Arsac 1987.
{Footnote 1: Gunderson 1971 criticises the Turing Test. The Turing
Test is a test for BEH-MEC. Simply put, a machine (hidden) passes the
test if it is able to pass itself off as a human being during a
conversation by means of a computer keyboard terminal.}
1.1.2 Mechanist Philosophy: Historical Summary
Contemporary digital mechanist philosophy is due in large measure to
Descartes and Hobbes {footnote 2} (see Rogow 1986, Bernhardt 1989).
Descartes wanted to distinguish Man from the animals. He argues that
the animal, as much as Man's body (including the brain), is a machine.
He understood by this a finite assembly of of material components that
unequivocally determine the behaviour of the whole. Descartes surmises
that the soul is not mechanical. In separating the soul from the body
in this way, and thus the mind from matter, he is the originator of
the dualist position, widely encompassed by the philosophy of mind.
One speaks of Cartesian Dualism.
There follows three arguments that Descartes presented in favour of
his distinction of man from the animal-as-machine (We note that this
distinction entails the negation of IND-MEC.)
{footnote 2: One can detect some mechanist affirmations or questions
among (pre and post-Socratic, though not necessarily materialist)
philosophers, from Greek antiquity (cf Timaeus and Plato, see also
Odifreddi 1989). Among Chinese philosophers, for example Lao-Tzu, a
certain monk is admired for having passed off his automated servants
as flesh and blood beings. Among Hindu philosophers for example, in
the Questions to the King Milinda, the human body is compared to the
chariot, and the human mind is compared to the different parts of the
chariot, similar to Hume's (1739) manner of tackling the problem of
identity with his boat. The temptation to set up artefacts in the
image of Man is also a component of several myths, (for ex. the Golem
in Jewish culture, see for ex. Breton 1990). It is no exaggeration to
maintain that the very idea of mechanism appears wherever and whenever
machines themselves are developed.}
1) Animals are not endowed with reason and cannot engage in linguistic
communication
This argument is losing credibility since language and reason seem
more accessible to today's machines than for example, emotion which is
communally allowed in the case of certain animals (see for ex. Lévy
1987). Here Descartes takes Aristotle's position which asserts that
Man is a reasoning animal.
2) Machines are finite beings. A finite being cannot conceive of the
infinite. Now, I am able (said Descartes) to conceive of the infinite.
Thus I am not a machine.
This argument against IND-MEC brings into relief two fundamental
questions:
a) Can man conceive of infinity
Re: Bruno's Brussels Thesis English Version Chap 1 (trial translation)
Not yet. But if you exercise moderate patience I can translate the
whole thing within the next two weeks (minus diagrams)
Thanks for the accolade
K
On 05/02/2009, at 5:37 PM, Hector Zenil wrote:
This is pretty good. Is there any online source with a complete
version available?
Thanks.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
Trans. Kim Jones (extract only)
1.1 Mechanist Philosophies
1.1.1 Different types of Mechanism
I distinguish the following mechanist hypotheses:
BEHAVIOURIST MECHANISM
Some machines can behave as thinking beings (living, conscious etc.)
(BEH-MEC)
STRONG MECHANISM
Some machines can think (living beings, conscious beings, have a
private
life etc.) (STR-MEC)
INDEXICAL MECHANISM
I am a machine (or - you are a machine, or again - human beings are
machines) (IND-MEC)
By replacing machine by digital machine one obtains the
corresponding
digital theses.
The behaviourist digital mechanism BEH-DIG-MEC corresponds largely
to that
of Turing in his 1950 article. In the same way, the strong digital
mechanism
STR-DIG-MEC corresponds to what is called in the literature the
strong
artificial intelligence thesis (strong AI).
In this work I am exclusively interested in indexical and digital
mechanism
(IND-DIG-MEC or just IDM). Digitality necessitates Church's
Thesis, which
is why the digital aspect is explained in its turn in the second
part.
There, I will show how a procedure, due essentially to Goedel,
permits an
indexical treatment of machines in general.
Proposition:
IND-MEC = STR-MEC = BEH-MEC, and
BEH-MEC ≠ STR-MEC ≠ IND-MEC.
(with or without the hypothesis of digitality)
Reasoning: One admits that humans know how to think (conscious
beings,
having private lives etc.) In this case IND-MEC entails STR-MEC and
STR-MEC
entails BEH-MEC. That BEH-MEC does not entail STR-MEC is supported by
Weizenbaum (1976) (see also Gunderson {footnote 1} 1971). STR-MEC
does not
entail IND-MEC, since the fact that machines are able to think does
not
entail that they alone are able to think. It is conceivable that
machines
are able to think without we ourselves being machines. Wang (1974)
presents
a similar reasoning. Nevertheless, numerous philosophers make
implicit use
of an opposing opinion: STR-MEC = IND-MEC, see for example Arsac
1987.
{Footnote 1: Gunderson 1971 criticises the Turing Test. The Turing
Test is a
test for BEH-MEC. Simply put, a machine (hidden) passes the test if
it is
able to pass itself off as a human being during a conversation by
means of
a computer keyboard terminal.}
1.1.2 Mechanist Philosophy: Historical Summary
Contemporary digital mechanist philosophy is due in large measure to
Descartes and Hobbes {footnote 2} (see Rogow 1986, Bernhardt 1989).
Descartes wanted to distinguish Man from the animals. He argues
that the
animal, as much as Man's body (including the brain), is a machine. He
understood by this a finite assembly of of material components
that unequivocally determine the behaviour of the whole. Descartes
surmises
that the soul is not mechanical. In separating the soul from the
body in
this way, and thus the mind from matter, he is the originator of
the dualist
position, widely encompassed by the philosophy of mind. One speaks of
Cartesian Dualism.
There follows three arguments that Descartes presented in favour of
his
distinction of man from the animal-as-machine (We note that this
distinction
entails the negation of IND-MEC.)
{footnote 2: One can detect some mechanist affirmations or questions
among (pre and post-Socratic, though not necessarily
materialist) philosophers, from Greek antiquity (cf Timaeus and
Plato, see
also Odifreddi 1989). Among Chinese philosophers, for example Lao-
Tzu, a
certain monk is admired for having passed off his automated
servants as
flesh and blood beings. Among Hindu philosophers for example, in the
Questions to the King Milinda, the human body is compared to the
chariot,
and the human mind is compared to the different parts of the chariot,
similar to Hume's (1739) manner of tackling the problem of identity
with his
boat. The temptation to set up artefacts in the image of Man is
also a
component of several myths, (for ex. the Golem in Jewish culture,
see for
ex. Breton 1990). It is no exaggeration to maintain that the very
idea of
mechanism appears wherever and whenever machines themselves are
developed.}
1) Animals are not endowed with reason and cannot engage in
linguistic
communication
This argument is losing credibility since language and reason seem
more
accessible to today's machines than for example, emotion which is
communally
allowed in the case of certain animals (see for ex. Lévy 1987). Here
Descartes takes Aristotle's position which asserts that Man is a
reasoning
animal.
2) Machines are finite
Re: The Seventh Step (Preamble)
On 05/02/2009, at 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Kim, Still interested? I must say I was wrong. Only a scientist admits he can be wrong. Everyone else will risk their life in the attempt to prove how right they are. How right can one be? Considering the emotion and passion some people invest in defending their righteous viewpoint you would perhaps be led to believe that one can be very right if not extremely right or even totally right. I cannot explain to you the functioning of a computer without doing math. I forgive your moment of weakness. I cannot explain to you the functioning of music without showing you the logic of harmony and counterpoint. We understand one another Orally, drawing on a black board, I would have been able to explain a big part of it, and simultaneously hiding the mathematics. But I realize now that even this would have been a bad idea and would have made things more difficult in the longer run, given the ambition of the project. The project is highly ambitious and you should follow your own best counsel in how to go about it most effectively. The burden is upon me to come up to your level of description in my understanding. Many people try to climb Everest these days. Some die in the attempt - if they succeed, they may still lose fingers and toes. After all, I am supposed to explain to you how, when we assume the comp hypothesis, the ultimate realities become mathematical in nature, even arithmetical or number theoretical. But how could I explain this to you without doing a bit of mathematics. It may seem strange, but, without demonstrating my understanding in any technical sense, I can at least assure you of my faith in the power of your reasoning. I understand music when I hear it - why should it be any different for this discourse? I somehow sense the music in the logic. If you choose well your words, I accept that they emerge from a mind that has already mapped language to arithmetical truth. Of course, I do not expect to pass any high level logic tests using this argument... Mathematics is a curious music that only the musicians can hear. It has always struck me as a possible advantage the musician has over the mathematician. You can fill your whiteboard with your arcane script, but you can not play any of it on your violin. Why I want to compose music derived from my understanding of all this. That is my ambitious project. Mathematicians play with instruments that only them can hear. To listen to a mathematician, you have to be a mathematician and play the instrument. Fortunately, all universal machine like you, are a mathematician, and when a human seems to feel he is not a mathematician, it just means the mathematician living within is a bit sleepy, for a reason or another. Or merely terrified of his lack of education over it. Nobody loses sleep thinking they are tone-deaf, because you can still live successfully without an inner pitch model but it is the same fiction as you describe. If you actually were tone deaf, you could not change gears in your car - you could not recognise a happy-sounding voice from an angry voice, you could not distinguish your mother's voice from your father's, you could not distinguish waves on the beach from the wind in the trees. Music is where our natural tonal recognition faculty is concentrated like a laser beam. I miss greatly the same concentrated ability with numbers. Especially that I am realizing that some people confuse a computation with a description of a computation, which are two very different mathematical objects (albeit relative one) existing in Platonia. You can burn all musical scores (partitions) of any piece and the piece is still there. A thought once thought cannot be unthought. You cannot delete information from the universe. I think. This plays a key role in the articulation of the step seven with the step eight. It plays a key role to understand the computationalist supervenience thesis, and thus where the laws of physics come from, and of course it is strictly needed when ultimately we interview the universal Lobian machine. I walk slowly in this direction. I am drawn to it by the beauty of the distant music I already hear. So, the time has come I cure your math anxiety, if you or some others are still interested. You teach me maths for free, I translate your theses for free I can awake the mathematician in you (like I can awake the mathematician living in any universal entity, btw :). OK - so you have NO excuse for not applying for a Templeton Foundation grant. Awaken the musical mathematician in the widest possible audience. Us musicians, we play very sweetly when somebody throws big money at us!!! I propose we begin with the numbers, and, to keep our motivation straight, I propose we meditate a little bit on the distinction between numbers
Re: The Seventh Step (Preamble)
On 07/02/2009, at 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Music begins with silence. The silence that precedes the upbeat is part of the music. Sometimes the Nothing is inserted into the midst of the music, Listen to the opening 20 or so bars of Claude Debussy's L'après midi d'un faune for a glowing illustration of what I mean. He starts with the one, then remembers the zero ( an inexplicable and mystical silence takes place, not long after the beginning. People have long wondered why this silence.) Yeah, zero is a bit mystical, 0 notes, at the right place, can even be dissonant, frightful ... To begin with a silence is almost perverse, you mean this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7tE1PvoSYIfeature=related Géniale!! The ZERO comes precisely at the 40 second mark (camera dissolve on French Horn) and lasts exactly 5 seconds (I have heard some conductors make it last nearly 10 seconds: for ex. Leonard Bernstein) followed by the harpist's glissando. I can think of no more perfect illustration of the musical power of silence. The Zero thus maintains it's historical place of appearing AFTER one!! Best K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's Brussels Thesis English Version Chap 1 (trial translation)
Bruno Thanks for the corrections - not only did I improve my understanding of the thesis in closely translating the language, but had enormous fun! I am up to the diagrammatic part and will stop here for the time being, to catch my breath and also to try and understand the Jaques Mallah thread as best I can. Günther recommends recently the book Eveything Must Go by Ladyman et al. This looks like heavy going but seems like a good and a relevant tome to get into, possibly circling around the mechanist idea. Do you also recommend it? Available from Amazon at a hefty price but might be worth it. Looking forward to the creative maths assignments - but take your time; we only live once but we live forever Best Kim On 10/02/2009, at 2:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2009, at 04:47, Kim Jones wrote: (see Broukère 1982), It is (see de Brouckère 1982) Note the c, and the de. Phenomena of genetic regulation with regard to mechanism are eloquent [elegant?=poss. error:] Kim) It is eloquent (indeed). Perhaps it would be clearer to say: Phenomena of genetic regulation are eloquent with regard to Mechanism. Mechanism is Mechanist Philosophy and so a capital M is better suited (I am afraid that you are not just translating my 1994 thesis, but you are correcting it ! Well, don't worry, this can be done at a second pass. I have no other remark. Excellent job. I guess that now I have not escape but to seriously introduce you to math for respecting the deal. Good move Kim :) This will be done asap, through little posts. The plan is: Numbers == functions === computable functions === computations === the seventh step (of the UDA). 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-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: A summary I just wrote for my blog
We only live once, but we live forever There is no afterlife - only life eternal Kim Jones On 11/02/2009, at 4:27 AM, Michael Rosefield wrote: I wrote it for my friends, but feel free to criticise! http://rosyatrandom.livejournal.com/35445.html _ Perhaps it's time I had another go at explaining all that weird stuff I believe in and why. Well, for those few that don't know, I reckon that all possible universes exist and that everyone's immortal. I admit, this does sound rather odd. It would have sounded odd to me about 10 years ago, too. Since about the age of 8 I was a pretty hardcore rational scientific naturalist: everything is simply matter and energy, and we but its dreams. What was real? Well, a chair. An atom. Something you can touch. After all, when you think of reality, you think of something... there. Something that sits there, quietly existing to itself. But what does that mean, really? Everyone knows that matter is almost entirely empty space, anyway - the solidity is just the feather-touch of far-extended electromagnetic fields. Electrons popping in and out of existence as the energy fields knot so charge can be transferred in quantised lumps. Particles do not behave as billiard balls - they are ghosts, obeying strange equations, lacking hard and fast surfaces or reliable locations. Matter, energy, space, time... they all begin to seem a bit ethereal when you look at them. Time. There's another one. I don't really believe in that, either. Spacetime is just a barely distinguishable fabric woven by the universe. Events do not occur at a time or a place - most of the observables we see arise kaleidoscope like out of an intricate web of possibilities, their form imposed by our own consciousness. And by that, I mean that our minds are embedded within the universe, constructed in such a way that the metaphysical structure of the cosmos is implied by our design - the word without reflects the world within. This has an aspect of the anthropic principle to it - that we observe a world capable of supporting our existence because if it didn't, we wouldn't. But this still has no bearing on how I started thinking things like this, so I shall get that out of the way. The short story is that I read some stories by a science-fiction author called Greg Egan. Before you laugh too much, a lot of sci-fi is essentially just window-dressing to convey an idea - the implications of some item of technology, turn of events or scientific/philosophical argument. And Greg Egan is a 'hard' science- fiction author, an ideas merchant. Well, you get the drift. The first story I read was called Wang's Carpets (later included as a chapter of the book Diaspora), in which some spacefarers (themselves software) find a planet whose major life-form are floating mats that take the form of Wang Tiles - tesselating objects whose patterns can implement a universal turing machine. But that's just the set-up for the idea: when someone analyses the Carpets, by taking various abstract variables (appearance of certain tiles and features, etc) and putting them through frequency transforms, it turns out that the computations the Carpets encode as part of their reproductive habits give rise to a fully realised n-dimensional space containing self-aware creatures. The thought-provoking part here was not that consciousness could be digitalised and run as software - I had already pretty much accepted that - but that the mathematical transformations necessary to do this could be pretty strange, and come from processes that were essentially plucked arbitrarily from the environment. That, largely, consciousness could be a matter of perspective. The second story was the book, Permutation City. A great deal of this book concerns one of the protagonists who wakes up one day and finds he is simply a downloaded copy - and that the 'real' him is running experiments. After being run at different speeds, and distributed in space and time, backwards, in chunks of different sizes, etc., the argument becomes that it doesn't matter what or how the program is run - it is all the same from the perspective of the consciousness being implemented, and that this is so abstract that one can find the relevant computational processes within any physical substrate. That all consciousnesses can be found within a grain of sand. That there is not even any physical bedrock to fall back upon - there is no way ever to verify, even in principle, that one is on the 'fundamental' metapysical level. At the end of the book, the characters have escaped into their own computational world, completely divorced from any physical hardware. Their universe contains a simulation of another world, whose very alien inhabitants find their own
Re: physical laws as optimal inference
Do it Nisheeth - try and answer the Burt Bacharach (actually the Hal David) Question: What's It All About, Alfie? Everybody will certainly read you. Expect frank feedback from this list as you already know. Good luck. Kim On 14/02/2009, at 11:14 AM, Nisheeth Srivastava wrote: Hi guys I've been lurking on the group's mailing list for over an year now, but have never really felt comfortable with the ensemble theory's nomenclature to try to participate actively in the discussions. I have been trying to clarify my views on the nature of physical theories on my own, and have come up with something that I am now running by various people I know (and others I don't know). Could I harness the magical powers of the Great Egalitarian Internet and hope that you will read my paper (physics.pdf uploaded to files section) and take it apart as completely as it probably deserves? I look forward to hearing from all of you, Nisheeth --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
On 06/03/2009, at 11:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: - Neither physicists nor logicians really knows about the mind-body problem. So it is easy to make someone interested in consciousness looking crazy: just say: this guy is interested on consciousness (with a grin). Why does some people want me so much looking crazy? Well if I tell you, I would myself find you insane to believe me. So I will not even try. If you known Belgium recent story, you can imagine, and reality is beyond what you can imagine. Bruno last night I dreamt that my cat had divided itself into two cats. Both cats were clones and happily running about and interacting. I could see both and was discussing with some friends the puzzle of why only some people, like me could see the constant clonage of things living. During the dream I had the amazing perception that this was happening to all living objects and it was as logical and certain as anything perceived during the day with eyes wide open. Also amazing - the belief that this is happening to macro (living) objects persisted in my brain for about a half an hour after I woke up. Clearly, translating into English your amoebas is having a profound effect on my unconscious mind. This also highlights for me the mysterious nature of belief. As you mention, early on in the thesis, we can believe no matter what falsity while we are asleep and dreaming. The occasional powerful dream like this one that penetrates the awake conscious mind shakes the very foundations of what we consider to be reality. What then, is the value of paying attention to the dreaming mind in this odyssey of The Fabric of Consciousness we are all hypnotized by at this time? PS - expect to post to this thread an instalment of the continuation of the translation by tonight - am being extremely careful to get it dead right to avoid any ambiguities. regards, Kim Jones People often confuse belief in a reality with belief in a physical reality - Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Email: kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Wolfram Alpha
http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=10240m=41581 Universities and schools should now re-invent themselves. We no longer need any institution to dole out knowledge because all (non-fuzzy factual) knowledge can be downloaded from the Net. Education can now only have a future by teaching skills - meaning: what you DO with that knowledge, also how to invent the future without having to continually compare every new idea to existing knowledge - the current paradigm and way too slow. Time is running out fast. Hint: teach creative thinking Huh? What's that? Don't we already do that? etc. cheers, Kim Jones There are no surprising facts about reality, only models of it that are surprised by facts Email: kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Wolfram Alpha
Certainly wouldn't disagree with you, Brent but I'm just wondering whether it's ever worth bringing out your yellow Positive Thinking hat before you automatically reach for your black Negative/Cautionary thinking hat? Please go right ahead and invent a bullshit detector ( a real one - not a bullshit one as they already exist) and I'll be one of the first to congratulate you. Perhaps Steve Wolfram (and the Internet) deserve a bit more of your consideration than just this? best regards, Kim On 10/03/2009, at 12:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Kim Jones wrote: http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html? newsID=10240m=41581 http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=10240m=41581 Universities and schools should now re-invent themselves. We no longer need any institution to dole out knowledge because all (non-fuzzy factual) knowledge can be downloaded from the Net. Along with an enormous amount of fuzzy, non-factual ignorance. Education can now only have a future by teaching skills Like B.S. detection. Brent Meeker The internet is a pornography delivery medium occasionally used for other purposes. --- George Carlin - meaning: what you DO with that knowledge, also how to invent the future without having to continually compare every new idea to existing knowledge - the current paradigm and way too slow. Time is running out fast. Hint: teach creative thinking Huh? What's that? Don't we already do that? etc. cheers, Kim Jones There are no /surprising facts about reality/, only /models/ of it that are /surprised by/ facts Email: kmjco...@mac.com mailto:kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Wolfram Alpha
things about. Critical intelligence is very valuable. Critical
thinking is an essential part of thinking. But critical thinking can
never be the whole of thinking.
The apostolic succession of educators in posts involving tenure and
high levels of job security mirrors the smugness with which the
education world holds its historical continuity in high esteem. It is
highly amusing for me to see a computer scientist and systems
architect such as Steve Wolfram innovating in such a way as to make
these people seem less and less relevant. Wolfram has his detractors
for sure, many people think he is a bullshit artist, but he is also a
risk-taking entrepreneur who has little regard for the sanctity of
education institutions to claim some kind of monopoly in the knowledge
game.
Bruno speaks often of 'interdisciplinarity'. This is the need to
escape specialisation, rather than to embrace it. Increasingly, I see
this as the safe path for education in the future. We all know about
the professor of quantum mechanics who was so expert in his field, he
could not even work out how to buy sex in a brothel. I think they made
a movie about it starring Marlene Dietrich. It is also true that the
people who are the most likely to innovate in any field are not the
hidebound ones, the pedants and the experts who act like oracles of
all truth and wisdom. Anyone who claims to be an 'expert' at something
is by definition expert in the state of knowledge up to that point.
The expert's judgement is based on the past. The expert's judgement is
based on what IS rather than what CAN BE. The expert is always being
asked for expert opinions. The expert cannot risk his or her
reputation. So the expert does need to stay on the side of caution.
Better to say that something cannot be done, rather than to say that
it can be done and to be responsible for some mistake. Experts are the
guardians of the past and people expect them to be so. They are like
priests of knowledge. A so-called 'expert' in QM has been telling me
for ages how stupid all of you people are for imagining that MWI makes
any sense. He laughs like a drain when I describe to him Bruno's
teleportation gedanken experiment. He simply 'knows' that it is all
fancy make-believe and that we are all engaged in some kind of new-age
nonsense here. He is highly educated and highly respected as a
teacher. Experts (specialists) once declared that for a rocket to get
to the moon it would have to weigh a million tons. Experts once
calculated that the total world market for computers would be just
eight computers. These particular experts worked for the Xerox
corporation. We all know what happened to Xerox in a fast-changing
world. Experts once declared that the telephone was nothing more than
an electronic toy.
These days, everybody can stake out their field and research whatever
they want. Life, however, is increasingly demanding that we all
specialise a little bit in many areas. As Bruno says, his own field of
thought is on the cusp of math, biology, psychology, theology,
physics, logic, computer science etc. Descartes said that it would be
best to teach all the sciences as one. Increasingly, the Internet is
the EXPERT and we are the fuzzy, creative innovators who design new
fields of endeavour with our vast realms of knowledge. A kind of
emergence phenomenon, if you will.
Kim Jones
On 11/03/2009, at 2:40 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Kim,
this seems to be a so far undiscussed domain and I have some concerns.
First off: the English usage mixes up 'education' with 'teaching'.
Schools have a task to transform unformatted teen-beasts into
constructive beings, what I call 'education'. That may be a very
controversial thing, because the aim of such transformation may be
questionable (by many) - e.g. in the Ottoman Empire the education of
the Janissaries produced uniform and brainwashed efficient killers.
But this is subject to intelligent evaluation.
Secondly: relying on 'online' provided knowledge eliminates the
shame of the student (Sorry, teach, I did not do my homework) -
which is a powerful educational momentum in raising responsible
people. More importantly the 'piped' ('wired', or rather:
'wirelessed') science is uncontrolled and depends on the choosing
skill of the 'pupil' - if he so decides.
There are benedits (besides weaknesses, of course) in having a 'live
and knowledgeable' teacher who verbally and demostratingly interacts
with his pupils. Benefit: experience and accumulated knowledge plus
the chance to simultaneously educate (see above). Weakness: the
choice WHAT is to be included in such 'knowledge' to be taught.
I fully agree with 'creative thinking' to be included. What happened
to those who have no resonance to the selected versions of it? (They
may be very talented in different domains). E.g. in a music school
'composing' may
Re: Altered states of consciousness
On 23/03/2009, at 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And why does plant constructs altered states of consciousness molecules? In my opinion it has all to do with the incredibly complex relationships that plant have with animals, in general, and insects in particular. Many plants have to detract predator insects. By killing them, or by just smelling like, or imitating the smell of, of the appearance of the worst predators of the insect (sort of lies!). But they must also to attract insects, feed them, and manipulate them in such a way that Mister plant can send its Message to Missis Plant which leaves at five miles from Him. You bet that with millions of years they knows about manipulating insects and animals, from predator and pollinator to consumers. Are you saying that the psycho-active component of Salvia comandeers the brain-state of the predator and sends it on its mission to find Miss Salvia for purposes of pollination? Would it be possible to examine the brain state of an insect under the influence to verify this somehow? Brilliant theorymaybe this somehow relates to the appearance of the mysterious female in Salvia- induced dysphoria in humans? Hm Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: d'Espagnat wins Templeton Award
On 23/03/2009, at 1:56 AM, John Mikes wrote: Russell, you are not alone as the target of this remark... Many people consider 'creativity' (like change, quality etc.) a POSITIVE concept. - WRONG. - Just consider the recent creative financial genius Maddoff, with his b$50 scam - he was creative. And so are tyrants, criminals, galore. (Don't forget politiciansG) But surely people are driven by their VALUES, John? Creativity is like a gun - it's about as good or as bad as the person wielding it. I could go one better than you in this direction: the perpetrators of 9/11 were creative geniuses (as Karlheinz Stockhausen, German composer said publicly on the day of 9/11, after seeing the TV images). They gave the world an incredibly potent lesson in Lateral Thinking: when is a jetliner not a jetliner? When it's a BOMB... But you fail to mention the beneficial creativity of people like Ray Kurzweil (My Kurzweil 2500 sampling keyboard-synthesiser will be buried with me in my coffin), Tim Berners-Lee (who invented the Web) and - well, I'm tempted to add Steven Wolfram for his Alpha Net engine but then I can hear the howls of disapproval already. John, if it hadn't been for creativity the human race would still be living in caves and living in fear of darkness and night. Creativity merely IS, like elephants and soy beans. You can use it to do good or wreak evil. More or less the proof that it is something real and worthy of our further effort of understanding. Madoff was (is) indeed creative - I wouldn't give you five cents for his values though. Hitler was in some respects a creative genius, unfortunately he possessed very dubious values. Best regards, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: d'Espagnat wins Templeton Award
On 26/03/2009, at 4:03 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: Actually, Madoff was just skillful - not creative. Ponzi was creative. Brent Touché Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: d'Espagnat wins Templeton Award
On 20/03/2009, at 6:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Kim, On 19 Mar 2009, at 05:19, Kim Jones wrote: But who can say that creativity cannot be taught when no institution sets out to do so? I have been teacher in a modern school based on creative thinking, but it happens it was a mode of brainwashing. I love creativity, but teaching it makes it less creative. Hells is paved with good intention. Dear Bruno (Here I am putting on the hat of the sensei) I hope you are wrong on this. Usually I hope you are right on everything, because you usually have the ring of truth about you. Here, unfortunately I feel in my adenoids you have the ring of fear (like dear Johnny Mikes) - but I could be wrong. Why would teaching the joy, the love, the fascination of something make that thing less than what it is? Teaching creativity leads straight to hell if you are Hitler, or Mengele or Madoff or Bush or Aristotle or ... (sorry - not in Alpha order) If the VALUES of the creativity teacher are fine, then the outcome will merely depend on the VALUES of the STUDENTS. That probably depends on their parents, their socio-economic background, their religion, their life-story their drug-use, their whatever. Some people may be better at creativity (lateral thinking) just as some people may be better at mathematics but this does not mean that there is a process that cannot be learned and used. As I said, Edward de Bono ALONE AMONGST ALL HUMANS worked out for himself (by '68) what creativity IS. Some people have 'the gift' of creativity to be sure - but creativity itself is NOT a gift. Gift from whom? From what? Come on - get real Lateral Thinking (=creativity) and vertical thinking are COMPLIMENTARY - not antagonistic. It can be shown that creativity can make people generate more ideas, and by definition gifts cannot be taught. In my book, NOTHING is 'a gift' because I can never be sure what or who is doing the giving (thank you for this enlightenment Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Harris, de Monfroy, Vic Stenger et al). My only 'gifts' came from the genes of my parents - things I did not have to 'learn' - like musical ability (Fuck, how I wish I had quantum physicists for parents!!) There is nothing mysterious or metaphysical about creativity! Creativity is a way of HANDLING INFORMATION. Please stop metaphysicalising creativity! If only Superman or Jesus can be creative then we are all screwed When you do this, you become AN INCONSISTENT MACHINE!!! Many people are scared of creativity because they think (feel) that it threatens the validity (=supremacy) of (academic) VERTICAL thinking. (Vertical thinking = where you must be 'right' at every step of the way and therefore 'consistent'). This is not so at all. The two processes are complimentary - not antagonistic. Remember, Socrates sold the car with only the front left wheel. I am selling the OTHER THREE WHEELS! Creativity (=lateral thinking) is useful for GENERATING ideas and approaches, vertical thinking (= logical, academic, lawyer-style, I am right, you are wrong-style thinking is useful for DEVELOPING ideas. Lateral Thinking enhances the valuse of Vertical Thinking by offering it MORE TO SELECT FROM. Vertical thinking multiplies the effectiveness of Lateral Thinking by making good use of the ideas generated. Most of the time, one will be using vertical thinking, but when one needs to use lateral thinking (as in the present moment in history, where we are desperate for a 'new idea') - no amount of excellence in vertical thinking will do instead. To persist i n vertical thinking when one should (if one is a consistent machine) be using lateral thinking is HIGHLY DANGEROUS. In truth, one needs skill at both types of thinking. Creativity is like the reverse gear in a car. One would be a crazy fool to attempt to drive everywhere in reverse gear. On the other hand, one cleary nbeeds to ahve it and to be educated to know when it's use is necessary - for example, how to get out of a cul-de-sac. warmest regards, K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Altered states of consciousness
On 28/03/2009, at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some hallucinogens go even further than this, and introduce an element of amnesia for semantic and episodic memories, such that users report the experience of forgetting that I had taken a drug, that I was human, or even what being human meant. Five to twenty minutes later they return to baseline and report feeling completely normal again. Frankly, what astonishes me, is that these altered states even exist at all. It would be reasonable to think that disrupting the physical processes which give rise to consciousness would merely cause it to fail; i.e., cause a loss of consciousness. Instead, in some cases, we have these fully immersive experiences with recurring, consistent themes, well structured, with content of unknown origin, and a lack of any relationship to sensory data streaming into the brain from the outside. Yeah, I think their might be something worth investigating here. There is definitely something worth investigating here. I'll volunteer for any consciousness altering experiments you want to run. I think so. What is really fascinating is the similarity and differences between reports by different people, from different traditions. This gives some credit to Jung's idea of collective unconscious and archetypes (despite a lot of misuses of those ideas in the literature). A Jung Between the age of 16 and 24 I sat in libraries and read his collected works. One of my other intellectual heroes. I don't care if he didn't write it but his autobiography Memories Dreams and Reflections is the best place for anyone who wanted to start with Jung. I started with The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious and in my spare time listened to Wagner's Ring Cycle. Jung was at his most creative, of course in Synchronicity: an Acausal Connecting Principle where he tries to show that the human mind or consciousness is able to register a type of information in random events that is somehow not coincidental. You have to take strongly on board that he was the son of a theologian and was into table turning and the paranormal. He has had profound penetration in the arts, as of course, did Freud. Just the same, Wolfgang Pauli (exclusion principle) helped him crunch the numbers in the Synchronicity study. It got into pop culture and is a word that everybody has heard but few understand was an attempt to scientifically prove the existence of an organising principle in Nature that in later years he felt could only be the will of God. He never heard of MWI but leapt on the Copenhagen Interpretation as evidence for the universe knew we were coming in the wave collapse theory. Sorry - I just had to throw all that in there... K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
New Thinkers Website
http://www.debonosociety.com/ What's important? Thinking is perhaps the most important thing humans do. By and large they are pretty slip-shod at it. The problems of Global Warming and the Global Financial Crisis pale into insignificance compared to the problem of the disastrous quality of much of human thinking. For those interested in creative thinking in particular and thinking skills generally. I have helped to set up and launch this new venture by Edward de Bono which, like the Everything List, is intended to be a bit of a swimming pool for high-quality thinkers. Everyone welcome. If you are unacquainted with Edward's oeuvre, this is the quickest way to get an education! In 1995, Edward had an asteroid named after him. He is on a list of 200 thinkers who have contributed the most to human civilisation throughout history. For some training movies featuring the man himself, click straight onto: http://www.debonosociety.com/video/video see some of you over there, perhaps? (Please bring an interesting photo of yourself with you!) de Bono Society - the Home of Interest cheers, Kim A thought once thought cannot be unthought - Edward de Bono It is impossible to delete information from this universe - Wei Dai Email: kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: New Thinkers Website
On 17/04/2009, at 11:09 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Kim, thank you for re-introduce me to DeBono. I heard about him in the late 90s at a list called Creativity (what I disliked, because it positied that Cr. can be developed and learned It can - as I never tire of saying. Come over to the site to find out how. The movies would be the best starting point. Best regards K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Temporary Reality
Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct theology? Materialistic atheism is not irrational, being on the side of reason, but it may be illogical, given the advanced view of reality we are adopting on this list that challenges the myth of a hard material substratum. Nevertheless I can see a distinct need for this illogicality. de Bono says that the mind goes from equilibrium to equilibrium which means we only ever see/perceive what the mind is prepped by belief to see. The mind craves stable states - we cope very badly with change we ourselves are not controlling or desiring We literally cannot see what we do not already possess some kind of belief/theory/hypothesis/guess etc. about that's the magnificent thing about hominid minds - they're able to make sense of anything at all; without this faculty we wouldn't have gotten this far But it's also a worry We find it extremely difficult to switch our perception away from our favourite, automated patterns of recognition Anything new will only be judged by the knowledge of the past i.e. the sequence of arrival of all information converted to knowledge up to that point. Anything truly new cannot therefore be understood easily. This is the mathematical necessity for Lateral Thinking and other disruptive mental operations that reboot perception so that previously hidden realities come into purview. It's also how humour works, another reason humour is an incredibly significant part of thinking. This would mean that atheism would be like a provocative operation designed to perturb the fake certainty of most religion so that perhaps a new appreciation based on renewed and broader perception comes about. as de Bono says it can be perfectly logical to be illogical at times. Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Temporary Reality
On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would result in expanding our consciousness? Tom What particular (and verifiable) personal interactions with God would you be able to claim Tom? Many people make this stupefying claim from time to time, but none have ever been independently verified to my knowledge. But then I guess it would no longer be personal. That's the trouble with experiences of God. Being so personal, you can only wait for your own personal experience to turn up. What if it doesn't? Best regards, Kim Jones --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Temporary Reality
On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a staging post to a future, more correct theology. As such, atheism could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I refer to it as temporary reality. It may actually be necessary to be wrong about something to provoke the mind to jump off the rails of its habitual patterns of recognition in order to open up the perception to something hitherto unseen. This is what Lateral Thinking does. By being openly wrong or outrageously inaccurate about something, the local equilibrium of the mind is perturbed and the possibility of movement can follow. Your suggestion that a relationship with God expands consciousness is fine. IF such a thing were true THEN the conclusion follows. I also offer the thought that IF God exists THEN we may have to ditch all organised religion at some stage to allow for correct theology to see the light of day. This process actually appears to be underway in many parts of the globe which is why I'm talking about it. Bruno's suggestions about the nature of God (a person, a thing, a mathematical truth, an experience of altered states, a relationship etc.) is the kind of thought that would probably only occur to an already-expanded consciousness. As part of the process of calling Kim's suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than simply being inescapable, but is fundamental. Couldn't agree more. If you want my tuppence worth on this I say we are all of us God. Religion says that Man was made in the image of God. Well, it could obviously be the other way around. Whatever the relationship, it is clearly a symmetrical one. K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Temporary Reality
On 07/05/2009, at 3:43 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: I think that knowing what a person is is sort of like knowing what consciousness is. Good. Have you ever had the feeling/hunch/thought/intuition/ apprehension/revelation/vision (call it what you will) that you know a person to whom the best possible descriptive concept you could apply is God? I take it you are struck by the persona, the personability, the closeness, the life-like (in the human sense) character of what is called often God? We just have to go right ahead and be a person and relate to other persons, in faith. Yes. But how could we be un-persons toward each other? Rather like relating to my wife. I'd rather like to relate to your wife. I've given up trying to figure her out, Have you ever wondered if she has given up trying to figure you out? draw up a theory on who she is and why, and based on that theory algorithmically (is that word allowed in here?) Of course come up with what therefore I should do in each situation. But that's the only thing you could do if you feel you want to stay with your wife. Has she got algorithms locked in for dealing with you? It's the sensible thing for any person to do in dealing with another person. Humans are pretty predictable machines after a while. The other thing you can do is an OPV (other person's viewpoint) and tell each other what you think the other knows or understands about you. When you do this you can either correct each other's faulty perceptions (not recommended - danger of argument) or listen awestruck (highly recommended) as your worst fears are confirmed OR you are amazed at how well your partner does understand you. I have to just be me When were you NOT yourself Dear Tom? and it seems to usually work out, thankfully. Sorry I can't be more precise. You've been perfectly precise So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it Hint: If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that: 1. God is a person (100% convinced) 2. There is a God (74% convinced) best regards, Kim 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. - Steven Wright Email: kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Temporary Reality
On 08/05/2009, at 2:30 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: People here keep thinking that I am trying to convince people that God is a person and/or that there is a God. OK - we will stop it! I don't really think that, but if you are anything like me Tom, you have gone through periods in your life where you believed, then you didn't believe, then you believed again, then you didn't believe again etc. Then I ran into this guy called Richard Dawkins and I really really didn't believe after that. Then I ran into this guy called Bruno Marchal and now I am sort of believing again although in what I would be rather hard put to say. Sorry I can't be more precise As Edward de Bono says Left to themselves things only ever get more and more complex. Simplicity has to be worked at. I think the corollary of this is, the older you get, the more you know but the less you feel you understand. This whole issue sounds like nonsense when you are young but has become somewhat more important the older I get. cheers, K --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Temporary Reality
Fabulous post, Jason. Enthralling stuff. Kim On 08/05/2009, at 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If we on this list believe that everything (or at least everything with a self consistent definition) exists, then we must also believe that all possible gods exist. Be they artificial intelligences that occur in the universal dovetailer with access to unbounded computing power and memory, an evolved species who reaches an omega point or technological singularity, or anything else you might imagine. What can we say about the personalities, behaviors and abilities of these gods? It is said that when intelligent people disagree, it is often due to a difference in available data. Assuming these gods all possess superior intellects, then they should all come to the same conclusion when presented with the same data. Mathematics, containing universal truths and accessible regardless of the physical universe or environment one finds his or her self in, might serve as a platform for all gods to reach identical conclusions regarding everything. Perhaps they would also conclude or even prove the existence of all else as we on the everything list believe. If it is possible, I would expect those gods would develop a model for consciousness, which would likely lead to the idea that other self-aware structures in math exist, and perceive. Though no god would have the power to eliminate what inevitably exists in math (thus explaining the problem of evil), they would still be able to run simulations of their own over which they may exercise full control. Perhaps the gods explore reality and the limits of consciousness by instantiating universes and the observers they contain, but for the god to really 'know' what it is like to be someone else, that persons memories and experiences must somehow be merged into the mind of that god, not simply simulated (Like Mary the color scientist). Thus whatever gods are simulating this universe (and inevitably some explanations for our universe include a higher level simulation) then we might be able to conclude some beliefs or properties of that god if we assume that whatever truth we may find, the mind of God has already come upon. This is just one narrow definition of god as a creator, yet there are certainly others. A monotheistic God might have to be equivalent to the everything, as it would be the only object for which there are no others, and would be the ultimate source of the existence of all else including the 'lesser gods' discussed above. We could also choose to define God as the collection of all first person experiences, meaning each of us is a small part of God. Interestingly you can somewhat map these different god definitions to the trinity from Christianity. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 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: Consciousness is information?
On 28/05/2009, at 12:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Also, I will from now on, abandon the term machine for the term number. Relatively to a fixed chosen universal machine, like Robinson arithmetic, such an identification can be done precisely. I will come back on this to my explanation to Kim, if he is still interested, and patient enough ... Am still interested and possessed of infinite patience Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Why would someone's IQ rating be a recommendation of anything about them? People like Langan long ago fell into the Intelligence Trap. They have an exaggerated need to be right about everything all the time. They are usually unable to think about anything from a perspective other than the one they long ago decided was the right perspective. They don't know how to listen to others. They are usually unable to restructure the available information in such a way that they can draw new perspectives from it. Please do not extoll the virtues of anything as anachronistic and mythical as somebody's supposed high IQ. I could put a thinking test in front of him that would defeat him totally, yet be easily done by a 7 year old. Kim Jones On 31/05/2009, at 9:16 AM, russell standish wrote: Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The seven step series
On 11/07/2009, at 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am also a bit anxious about Kim, who is the one who suggested me the initial explanations, but who seems to have disappear right now. OK - I'm back. Since May 27 to two days ago I have been without Internet access. I made the mistake of upgrading my Broadband plan to add Internet phone. It took two telcos a month to complete this ridiculously basic operation with mistakes made and attendant extra waiting times. Then, just as the connection was restored at the beginning of July, the plumbing in this block of apartments fell apart and a major excavation work went ahead and this time the plumbers cut the phone cable and didn't realise it which meant I wasted another week trying to get the problem diagnosed. So now finally everything is back to normal. I have just started reading this thread and can see that the class is a very exclusive one! I will try my best to follow through on the exercises and the comments, corrections. I feel I have access to the correct mathematical symbols on my Mac now but *time* is the thing that I don't have much of anymore, so I feel a bit depressed about the level of effort I can devote to it. If only we didn't have to work for a living things would be vastly easier. The notion of sets is indeed a tricky one. I am just now going over the initial exercises again. Do not wait for me. I am also trying to catch up on about 4,000 emails. Bruno - my sincerest apologies for this hiatus. You seem eager to get to the seventh and eighth steps. Why wouldn't you be. regards, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Dreaming On
Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what RITSIAR means? I cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it. Sorry to be dumb, Kim On 27/07/2009, at 12:52 AM, David Nyman wrote: Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of my understanding of the main points that have emerged thus far. I hope this will be helpful for future discussion. THE APHORISMS We do not see the mind, we see *through* the mind. What we see through the mind - its contents - is mind-stuff: dreams. Hence dream content - i.e. whatever is capable of being present to us - can't be our ontology - this would be circular (the eye can't see itself). So the brain (i.e. what the eye can see) can't be the mind; but the intuition remains that mind and brain might be correlated by some inclusive conception that would constitute our ontology: Kant's great insight stands. It is similarly obvious that 'identity' theories and the like are non-sense: it would indeed be hard to think of two descriptions less 'identical' than brain-descriptions and mind-descriptions: hence again, any such identification could only be via some singular correlative synthesis. Hence any claim that the mind is literally identical with, or 'inside', the brain can be shown to be false by the simple - if messy - expedient of a scalpel; or else can be unmasked as implicitly dualistic: i.e. the claim is really that 'inside' and 'outside' are not merely different descriptions, but different ontologies. By extension of our individual introspecting, a plurality of minds, and the 'external world' that includes brains, can be conceived as correlated in some way - to be elucidated - in a universal synthesis or context: that context being our mutual ontology. Such a universal context, or in common terms 'what exists', cannot be fully known (i.e. can't be exhausted by description) although - or rather because - it constitutes what we are, and by extension what *everything* is. Nonetheless we may seek a logic of dreaming so far as it goes, and this will indeed be as far as anything goes in the way of knowledge claims. Mathematics may be deployed as a dream-logic: but mathematical physics, restricted to 'physical heuristics', prototypically gets stuck at the level of describing the content and behaviour of dreams, not their genesis. To go further and deeper we need an explicit mathematical specification of dreamers and their dreams, and of generative mechanisms by which dreamers and their dream contents can be constructed. Such a schema will by its nature form an analysis of how we come to believe that we and our world are real, and in what terms: i.e. how we come to know a world in a present and personal manner. Consequently such a schema must subsume within its universe of discourse: being, knowing, perceiving, acting and intending - as the foundations of what it means to be real: i.e. it must be capable of invoking the Cheshire Cat *to the life*, not merely leave its grin hanging in the void. Moving beyond bare analysis and description, any move to universalise and 'realise' the axioms of such a schema is to make a claim on ontological finality. It has not been completely clear (to me) whether COMP necessarily makes such a stipulation on realisation, in the sense of a claim that its axioms *literally are* what is present and personal (i.e. RITSIAR). However I'm coming to suspect that it does not in fact make such a claim, although it allows any one of us to take this as a personal leap of faith, specifically through the acid test of saying yes to the doctor. COMP may turn out to be false in its specific predictions - i.e. empirical tests could rule out the possibility of our being finite machines; or perhaps we can never be sure one way or the other. Nonetheless, the inescapable implication is that any alternative schema must from the outset explicitly and fearlessly address the same problem space or else run foul of the same intractable 0-1-3 person ontological and epistemological issues. This has profound implications for virtually all current cosmological TOEs: i.e. a view from nowhere turns out to be nobody's view. As has been observed in other writings, our understanding remains profoundly obscured and distorted unless we restore the personal to the view from nowhere. Only then can we conceive why indeed there is somewhere rather than nowhere. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Dreaming On
On 27/07/2009, at 11:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Hi Kim, RITSIAR means real in the sense that I am real. Cheers Brian Kim Jones wrote: Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what RITSIAR means? I cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it. Sorry to be dumb, Kim Much obliged to you Brian. Hopefully, by the end of this conversation without end I will know in what sense I am real!! cheers, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite female on the planet. If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel Contact (or saw the movie) - this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster in the film) Introduction by Richard Dawkins cheers, Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
3D Mandelbrot
The Mandelbulb: first 'true' 3D image of famous fractal enjoy Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
Please, please read Edward de Bono's book The Mechanism of Mind for some genuine insights into creativity and how this comes about in mind. Russell if you can't track down a copy I'll lend you mine but it's a treasured object, not least because of the fact that the author autographed it! On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
It just may provide you that flash of insight you hanker for; that's my grand hope, anyway. here's a snippet: There may be no reason to say something until after it has been said. Once it has been said a context develops to support it, and yet it would never have been produced by a context. It may not be possible to plan a new style in art, but once it comes about, it creates its own validity. It is usual to proceed forward step by step until one has got somewhere. But - it is also possible to get there first by any means and then look back and find the best route. A problem may be worked forward from the beginning but it may also be worked backward from the end. Instead of proceeding steadily along a pathway, one jumps tpo a different point, or several different points in turn, and then waits for them to link together to form a coherent pattern. It is in the nature of the self-maximising system of the memory-surface that is mind to create a coherent pattern out of such separate points. If the pattern is effective then it cannot possibly matter whether it came about in a sequential fashion or not. A frame of reference is a context provided by the current arrangement of information. It is the direction of development implied by this arrangement. One cannot break out of this frame of reference by working from within it. It maybe necessary to jump out, and if the jump is successful then the frame of reference is itself altered. (p. 240 - description of the process known as Lateral Thinking.) Give me a bell in about a week and we will jump in somewhere for a beer and I will pass you this volume (if still interested after reading the above) - I will have a little less Uni work to do for a short while; I may be able to get down to a bit of finessing of our translation of Bruno's Amoebas. Kim Jones On 10/10/2012, at 8:16 AM, Russell Standish wrote: Maybe I will take you up on this - I think my uni library card expired years ago, and its a PITA to renew. However, since one doesn't need a mind to be creative (and my interest is actually in mindless creative processes), I'm not sure exactly how relevant something titled Mechanism of Mind it will be. BTW - very close to sending you a finished draft of Amoeba's Secret. I just have to check the translations I wasn't sure of now that I have access to a dictionary/Google translate, and also redo the citations in a more regular manner. Cheers On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: Please, please read Edward de Bono's book The Mechanism of Mind for some genuine insights into creativity and how this comes about in mind. Russell if you can't track down a copy I'll lend you mine but it's a treasured object, not least because of the fact that the author autographed it! On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers -- 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. -- 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
Yes, Doctor!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9597345/Afterlife-exists-says-top-brain-surgeon.html Comments, theories, reflections welcome. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Not in the dictionary. try again. On 09/01/2013, at 11:21 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: paroxistic -- 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :) Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but not quite. Both of these Brains the Size of a Planet are married though. We must try to find a cute unmarried cosmologist that believes in Arithmetical realism to gang bang. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person should know get tiresome too. Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a positive effect on the mind's ability to accept new input. Failing that, you might give dandelion coffee a go or even cannabis. This last may prove fatal to your inflated self-confidence concerning everything you write. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
Actually, John Clark wrote... On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:34 pm, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person should know get tiresome too. Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a positive effect on the mind's ability to accept new input. Failing that, you might give dandelion coffee a go or even cannabis. This last may prove fatal to your inflated self-confidence concerning everything you write. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: Block Universes
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often remarked, the past is a block and the universe keeps adding new moments and growing. This would be like Barbour's time capsules, except just sticking everything into one capsule, like a history book that keeps adding pages. But yes it implies another exterior time in which this happens; but then so does Bruno's UD. Only if you call the order of the natiral numlbers a time. The UD does not use anything more. The UD both generates and executes all programs. In other words it reads the numbers, yes? It both reads the numbers to generate numbers and reads them to execute them. I mean the order of the natural numbers is itself a number isn't it? Then there are just numbers READING ie glimpsing, looking at, noticing or whatever - each other. What has time got to do with any of that? Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: Films I think people on this forum might like
On 3 Feb 2014, at 5:14 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend. The Prestige is absolutely fantabuloso. Hugh Jackman - what can I say. You need an Aussie to carry it off, now don't you...Dave Bowie as Nikola Tesla - very schmick. The moment when Tesla duplicate/teleports Angier's hat in his machine and Angier, walks outside and, dismayed, sees a field full of hats and asks Butwhich is mine? To which Tesla replies, cool as ice But my dear fellow, they are all yours! I must confess that the hair stands up on the back of my neck when that happens. I cannot imagine a universe without good sci-fi although logically they must exist Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: Films I think people on this forum might like
I think I may have seen '2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY' about 30 times by now. Actually, I can lie on a couch and simply play the entire film in my head - I don't even need to hire the disc! The music helps of course, because Kubrick's matching of great classical pieces to tech wizardry and the whole Sentinel/Monolith Ligeti 'Atmospheres' voice of this thing just blows my mind to smithereens. To actually suggest that the Engineer contacts us via a stone block that sings music is a concept that I rather find somewhat compelling But Arthur C Clarke probably gets equal credit... K On 3 Feb 2014, at 5:14 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento. There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend. To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least tangentially, and in a fictional manner). I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block univese. Sadly no one seems to have filmed October the First is Too Late although the 10-episode epic Doctor Who story The War Games comes close in some respects. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Who story was inspired by Hoyle's novel, which I think appeared about 3 years beforehand if I remember correctly. I would semi-recommend this (but you have to remember that it was made in black and white, for viewing as a weekly serial in 1969...) -- 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. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: Block Universes
On 4 Feb 2014, at 3:34 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What did you mean by reading numbers? I imagine the UD as a kind of 'playhead' or 'read head' in a digital device that scans encoded information. The difference of course being that there is no output. The lack of output is correlated with the 'block time' concept somehow. The Prolog interpreter demo you gave suggests the algorithms are 'generated' but I am suggesting they already exist (everything exists) and are merely scanned or read by the Universal Song Pointer Line which is at all positions simultaneously and, presumably, eternally (whatever 'eternally' could possibly mean in a block universe.) K Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
What is your problem, buddy? Didn't your mmmy love you enough? Did your daddy forget AGAIN to get the new batteries for your train set? Isn't it time you grew up just a little? Kim On 15 Feb 2014, at 8:07 am, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: If Liz had actually been following my and Jesse's lengthly discussion she would know her comment below isn't true. But of course truth isn't one of Liz's strong points, it generally comes in second to spite Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
On 14 Feb 2014, at 3:42 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presumably) no observers in existence in the universe. Are you saying it wouldn't exist if we hadn't evolved to detect it (e.g. if humans hadn't evolved, or if we had never invented radio telescopes) ? Yes - exactly. A direct consequence of The Reversal. First comes Mind. Physics and matter and the 3D holographic farmyard are a long way down the road. I hope no one is assuming that it requires something as weird as a human to implement consciousness. Something as basic as a Boltzmann brain would be in principle, instantly possible in any universe, surely. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/14/2014 4:24 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 14 Feb 2014, at 3:42 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presumably) no observers in existence in the universe. Are you saying it wouldn't exist if we hadn't evolved to detect it (e.g. if humans hadn't evolved, or if we had never invented radio telescopes) ? Yes - exactly. A direct consequence of The Reversal. First comes Mind. Physics and matter and the 3D holographic farmyard are a long way down the road. I hope no one is assuming that it requires something as weird as a “human” to implement consciousness. Something as basic as a Boltzmann brain would be in principle, instantly possible in any universe, surely. Of course Boltzmann brains are notoriously transient, so we're to think of the universe (or at least pieces of past light cones) blinking in and out of existence. Or does that take a Boltzmann brain plus optic nerves and eyes and a Boltzmann telescope? Brent A mind without a hosting apparatus is the entity I am struggling to describe. I have no trouble with the notion that consciousness can simply exist with no extra qualifiers whatsoever. We are talking about that which simply exists - when it exists, where it exists, its characteristics etc. are another story. I don't know whether such questions are even relevant. Kim -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
On 15 Feb 2014, at 10:58 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 15 February 2014 10:25, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I wonder that. I generally assume people arguing on a forum like this are rational (ish) and hence that they intend what they say and when they keep avoiding questions it's because they don't want to answer them, and when they're rude and arrogant it's intentional, and so on. But sometimes I think they can't be conscious of what they're doing, that surely no one would want to be like that deliberately, at least no one interersted in truth and science - maybe money and politics. It's a mystery, to me at least. Galen Strawson recently quoted some remarks of Herbert Feigl that, mutatis mutandis, might well apply more generally: Philosophers are hypersensitive .. in their repressed perplexities. A puzzle which does not resolve itself within a given favored philosophical frame is repressed very much in the manner in which unresolved intrapersonal conflicts are repressed. I surmise that psychologically the first kind may be subsumed under the second. Scholars cathect certain ideas so strongly and their outlook becomes so ego involved that they erect elaborate barricades of defenses, merely to protect their pet ideas from the blows (or the slower corrosive effects) of criticism. No one can be sure that he is not doing this sort of thing in a particular case, and I claim no exception for myself. (The Mental and the Physical). And Sam Harris, in his reply to Dan Dennett in their recent debate on free will, remarks that he's .. begun to doubt whether any smart person retains the ability to change his mind. Of course one might well wonder how applicable the term smart would be if this were indeed the case (leave alone the question of how free or otherwise we are to change our minds!). David In the case of Edgar it is so screamingly obvious that his continued appearance on this list is an expression of deep personal need to be appreciated as the genius he indubitably considers himself to be. It's actually quite instructive to see how this plays out in his posts. He has revealed a few personal tidbits about his past that lend weight to this - no need to repeat them here, but his agenda is indeed ego-driven and thus anti-rational, although he has not the slightest intention of acknowledging this since people have clearly been taking exception to his arrogant personal style for most of his life. Which is almost certainly why he has landed here, where he can simply bleat-away without fear of real reprisal. All of his thinking is messy and derivative and shot-through with lacunae and selective reasoning. This boy has never truly learnt how to think. I repeat again that the only effective way to deal with bullies and thickheads is to ignore their posts. Every post by Edgar is essentially an invitation to cross swords with his out-of-control ego, desperate for attention. The continued refusal to answer questions concerning his fundamental assumptions would have him thrown out of any science academy worth the name. You can of course, get away with any shit you want over the Internet. -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
On 16 Feb 2014, at 7:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The best defense against becoming stuck with a wrong opinion is don't make up your mind in the first place. However, this means accepting the burden of acting under uncertainty. Are you sure about that? I'd be fairly certain about that. Humans have to get used to the very high level of uncertainty that accompanies any authentic action. By authentic action I mean action that is not the clone of some other action or tried and tested process, but the honest attempt to design a way forward with limited knowledge and no guarantee of success. Interestingly, humans never do get used to the enormous uncertainty surrounding their existence. Humans crave certainty before acting but reality, by it's very nature denies them this luxury. The choice to have a chicken burger may indeed be complicated by salmonella but there is no fail safe way of knowing beforehand. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
On 16 Feb 2014, at 2:06 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/14/2014 4:24 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 14 Feb 2014, at 3:42 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presumably) no observers in existence in the universe. Are you saying it wouldn't exist if we hadn't evolved to detect it (e.g. if humans hadn't evolved, or if we had never invented radio telescopes) ? Yes - exactly. A direct consequence of The Reversal. First comes Mind. Physics and matter and the 3D holographic farmyard are a long way down the road. I hope no one is assuming that it requires something as weird as a “human” to implement consciousness. Something as basic as a Boltzmann brain would be in principle, instantly possible in any universe, surely. Of course Boltzmann brains are notoriously transient, so we're to think of the universe (or at least pieces of past light cones) blinking in and out of existence. Or does that take a Boltzmann brain plus optic nerves and eyes and a Boltzmann telescope? Brent A mind without a hosting apparatus is the entity I am struggling to describe. I have no trouble with the notion that consciousness can simply exist with no extra qualifiers whatsoever. We are talking about that which simply exists - when it exists, where it exists, its characteristics etc. are another story. I don't know whether such questions are even relevant. Kim Existence, when, where, and characteristics would all be conditions within the primordial capacity for experience. Craig OK - so Hameroff and Penrose's conjecture that consciousness was a property of the primordial universe has legs then? These two are physicalists though; if I read Russell correctly he is saying this. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 11 Feb 2014, at 2:15 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The point is that if we take the assumptions of comp, then quantum duplication, hypothetical matter transmitter duplication, and living from day to day ALL involve the same amount of (or lack of) continuity. Yes. The way I now understand it, with Comp, sleeping in your bed at night is Death Lite. Kim -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, SCHOOLBOY? Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 17 Feb 2014, at 2:00 am, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Kim, I hope you are aware that constantly harboring so much hatred, especially such delusional unfounded hatred, is quite likely to result in serious health problems. For your own sake, I'd suggest you try to lighten up and see the bright and healthy aspects of life! Best, Edgar On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:20:09 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: On 15 Feb 2014, at 10:58 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 15 February 2014 10:25, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I wonder that. I generally assume people arguing on a forum like this are rational (ish) and hence that they intend what they say and when they keep avoiding questions it's because they don't want to answer them, and when they're rude and arrogant it's intentional, and so on. But sometimes I think they can't be conscious of what they're doing, that surely no one would want to be like that deliberately, at least no one interersted in truth and science - maybe money and politics. It's a mystery, to me at least. Galen Strawson recently quoted some remarks of Herbert Feigl that, mutatis mutandis, might well apply more generally: Philosophers are hypersensitive .. in their repressed perplexities. A puzzle which does not resolve itself within a given favored philosophical frame is repressed very much in the manner in which unresolved intrapersonal conflicts are repressed. I surmise that psychologically the first kind may be subsumed under the second. Scholars cathect certain ideas so strongly and their outlook becomes so ego involved that they erect elaborate barricades of defenses, merely to protect their pet ideas from the blows (or the slower corrosive effects) of criticism. No one can be sure that he is not doing this sort of thing in a particular case, and I claim no exception for myself. (The Mental and the Physical). And Sam Harris, in his reply to Dan Dennett in their recent debate on free will, remarks that he's .. begun to doubt whether any smart person retains the ability to change his mind. Of course one might well wonder how applicable the term smart would be if this were indeed the case (leave alone the question of how free or otherwise we are to change our minds!). David In the case of Edgar it is so screamingly obvious that his continued appearance on this list is an expression of deep personal need to be appreciated as the genius he indubitably considers himself to be. It's actually quite instructive to see how this plays out in his posts. He has revealed a few personal tidbits about his past that lend weight to this - no need to repeat them here, but his agenda is indeed ego-driven and thus anti-rational, although he has not the slightest intention of acknowledging this since people have clearly been taking exception to his arrogant personal style for most of his life. Which is almost certainly why he has landed here, where he can simply bleat-away without fear of real reprisal. All of his thinking is messy and derivative and shot-through with lacunae and selective reasoning. This boy has never truly learnt how to think. I repeat again that the only effective way to deal with bullies and thickheads is to ignore their posts. Every post by Edgar is essentially an invitation to cross swords with his out-of-control ego, desperate for attention. The continued refusal to answer questions concerning his fundamental assumptions would have him thrown out of any science academy worth the name. You can of course, get away with any shit you want over the Internet. -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, SCHOOLBOY? Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 17 Feb 2014, at 2:00 am, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Kim, I hope you are aware that constantly harboring so much hatred, especially such delusional unfounded hatred, is quite likely to result in serious health problems. For your own sake, I'd suggest you try to lighten up and see the bright and healthy aspects of life! Best, Edgar On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:20:09 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: On 15 Feb 2014, at 10:58 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 15 February 2014 10:25, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I wonder that. I generally assume people arguing on a forum like this are rational (ish) and hence that they intend what they say and when they keep avoiding questions it's because they don't want to answer them, and when they're rude and arrogant it's intentional, and so on. But sometimes I think they can't be conscious of what they're doing, that surely no one would want to be like that deliberately, at least no one interersted in truth and science - maybe money and politics. It's a mystery, to me at least. Galen Strawson recently quoted some remarks of Herbert Feigl that, mutatis mutandis, might well apply more generally: Philosophers are hypersensitive .. in their repressed perplexities. A puzzle which does not resolve itself within a given favored philosophical frame is repressed very much in the manner in which unresolved intrapersonal conflicts are repressed. I surmise that psychologically the first kind may be subsumed under the second. Scholars cathect certain ideas so strongly and their outlook becomes so ego involved that they erect elaborate barricades of defenses, merely to protect their pet ideas from the blows (or the slower corrosive effects) of criticism. No one can be sure that he is not doing this sort of thing in a particular case, and I claim no exception for myself. (The Mental and the Physical). And Sam Harris, in his reply to Dan Dennett in their recent debate on free will, remarks that he's .. begun to doubt whether any smart person retains the ability to change his mind. Of course one might well wonder how applicable the term smart would be if this were indeed the case (leave alone the question of how free or otherwise we are to change our minds!). David In the case of Edgar it is so screamingly obvious that his continued appearance on this list is an expression of deep personal need to be appreciated as the genius he indubitably considers himself to be. It's actually quite instructive to see how this plays out in his posts. He has revealed a few personal tidbits about his past that lend weight to this - no need to repeat them here, but his agenda is indeed ego-driven and thus anti-rational, although he has not the slightest intention of acknowledging this since people have clearly been taking exception to his arrogant personal style for most of his life. Which is almost certainly why he has landed here, where he can simply bleat-away without fear of real reprisal. All of his thinking is messy and derivative and shot-through with lacunae and selective reasoning. This boy has never truly learnt how to think. I repeat again that the only effective way to deal with bullies and thickheads is to ignore their posts. Every post by Edgar is essentially an invitation to cross swords with his out-of-control ego, desperate for attention. The continued refusal to answer questions concerning his fundamental assumptions would have him thrown out of any science academy worth the name. You can of course, get away with any shit you want over the Internet. -- 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 are numbers? What is math?
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, SCHOOLBOY? Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 17 Feb 2014, at 2:00 am, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Kim, I hope you are aware that constantly harboring so much hatred, especially such delusional unfounded hatred, is quite likely to result in serious health problems. For your own sake, I'd suggest you try to lighten up and see the bright and healthy aspects of life! Best, Edgar On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:20:09 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: On 15 Feb 2014, at 10:58 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 15 February 2014 10:25, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I wonder that. I generally assume people arguing on a forum like this are rational (ish) and hence that they intend what they say and when they keep avoiding questions it's because they don't want to answer them, and when they're rude and arrogant it's intentional, and so on. But sometimes I think they can't be conscious of what they're doing, that surely no one would want to be like that deliberately, at least no one interersted in truth and science - maybe money and politics. It's a mystery, to me at least. Galen Strawson recently quoted some remarks of Herbert Feigl that, mutatis mutandis, might well apply more generally: Philosophers are hypersensitive .. in their repressed perplexities. A puzzle which does not resolve itself within a given favored philosophical frame is repressed very much in the manner in which unresolved intrapersonal conflicts are repressed. I surmise that psychologically the first kind may be subsumed under the second. Scholars cathect certain ideas so strongly and their outlook becomes so ego involved that they erect elaborate barricades of defenses, merely to protect their pet ideas from the blows (or the slower corrosive effects) of criticism. No one can be sure that he is not doing this sort of thing in a particular case, and I claim no exception for myself. (The Mental and the Physical). And Sam Harris, in his reply to Dan Dennett in their recent debate on free will, remarks that he's .. begun to doubt whether any smart person retains the ability to change his mind. Of course one might well wonder how applicable the term smart would be if this were indeed the case (leave alone the question of how free or otherwise we are to change our minds!). David In the case of Edgar it is so screamingly obvious that his continued appearance on this list is an expression of deep personal need to be appreciated as the genius he indubitably considers himself to be. It's actually quite instructive to see how this plays out in his posts. He has revealed a few personal tidbits about his past that lend weight to this - no need to repeat them here, but his agenda is indeed ego-driven and thus anti-rational, although he has not the slightest intention of acknowledging this since people have clearly been taking exception to his arrogant personal style for most of his life. Which is almost certainly why he has landed here, where he can simply bleat-away without fear of real reprisal. All of his thinking is messy and derivative and shot-through with lacunae and selective reasoning. This boy has never truly learnt how to think. I repeat again that the only effective way to deal with bullies and thickheads is to ignore their posts. Every post by Edgar is essentially an invitation to cross swords with his out-of-control ego, desperate for attention. The continued refusal to answer questions concerning his fundamental assumptions would have him thrown out of any science academy worth the name. You can of course, get away with any shit you want over the Internet. -- 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them. Bruno How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers. We're music. Let's go to the pub and celebrate. Kim -- 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
On 2 Mar 2014, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote: Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them. Bruno How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers. Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded stubborn mathematician :) I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep and profound though. Yes. Tell me: are the following equivalent statements to a literally-minded stubborn mathematician like you: 4 + 1 = 5 1 + 4 = 5 2 + 3 = 5 3 + 2 = 5 because to a lateral-thinking, alternative-seeking musical thinker like moi they are not. You only have to perform (ie clap or tap out) 4 + 1 followed by 1 + 4 to see ( ie hear - ratiocinate) that they are not equivalent in the musical sense. Give me a shout if you cannot clap these sentences accurately. K -- 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
On 3 Mar 2014, at 6:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Mar 2014, at 08:32, Kim Jones wrote: On 2 Mar 2014, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote: Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them. Bruno How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers. Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded stubborn mathematician :) I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep and profound though. Yes. Tell me: are the following equivalent statements to a literally-minded stubborn mathematician like you: 4 + 1 = 5 1 + 4 = 5 2 + 3 = 5 3 + 2 = 5 They are equivalent in many senses, and not equivalent in many other senses. They are equivalent semantically, but then with classical semantics, all true statement are equivalent. I mean that if you have the truth that 4+1 = 5 then 1+4=5. That is: (4+1= 5 - 1+4=5) is true. They are deductively equivalent in RA, PA, ZF, etc. because such theories can prove the equivalence above. They are not equivalent in any procedural sense. adding 1 to 4 is not the same thing than adding 4 to 1. It happens that the result is the same, but the procedure is not. In fact equivalent means nothing, if you don't stipulate the relation of equivalence applied. because to a lateral-thinking, alternative-seeking musical thinker like moi they are not. OK. But I need your equivalence relation. Equivalent in the “musical sense” would mean strict invariance “to the ear”. You only have to perform (ie clap or tap out) 4 + 1 followed by 1 + 4 to see ( ie hear - ratiocinate) that they are not equivalent in the musical sense. OK, in the musical sense, assuming + introduce a time delay in the claps, they are not. “ + “ adds no time delay. All the numbers are “butt to butt”. A time delay would signify a number. Curiously, the only sonic way you can perform 4 + 1 is to differentiate these two entities somehow. We do this by making the first clap of any group loud and all successive claps soft. So 4 + 1 comes out as (F = ‘forte’ loud, p = ‘piano’ soft) FpppFFpppFFpppFF etc. Try 3 + 2 (X3) and swap immediately to 2 + 3 (X2) Comes out as: FppFpFppFpFppFpFpFppFpFpp (remember no gabs between claps. A gap is a number. Silence is structured in music.) Do it really fast and continually and then later on smoke a joint and listen to Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five” which you have kind of just prepared your neurons for. Give me a shout if you cannot clap these sentences accurately. Actually, your clap view of numbers make 1+x non equivalent with x+1 useful for the infinite ordinals. 1 + omega = omega that is clap followed by clap clap clap clap ... is considered as equivalent to clap clap clap ... The + does not add delay, for the ordinal, unless there are an infinity, and so: omega + 1 is not = to omega, clap, clap, clap, clap, , clap ≠ clap, clap, clap, clap, , That's a different rhythm indeed. Bruno Yes. Actually, an interesting “law” of music is that when dealing with isochronic stresses “beats” - the invisible number structure that orders all music linearly (can be explicit or virtually undiscernible depending on the music) is that STRONG is always followed by WEAK. Thus, ‘1’ is ALWAYS a strong (ie loud) beat. With a field of 3 beats (‘waltz-time’) this gets interesting because you now have FppFppFpp which when you perform it suggests a circle. The old conductors would wave their arms in a circle to conduct 3/4 time in the past. What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the bar that precisely, irrefutably describes to my mind a circle? K K -- 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. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
On 3 Mar 2014, at 8:53 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the bar that precisely, irrefutably describes to my mind a circle? You tell me. Bruno Sure. I think it is this: http://youtu.be/AP_CSQgBPpQ The angel and the devil both pumping The Wheel of Fortune. Note that once you pull on the wheel, it turns. This generates fate. Could a triangle do the trick as well? K -- 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
On 4 Mar 2014, at 3:07 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 3 Mar 2014, at 8:53 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the bar that precisely, irrefutably describes to my mind a circle? You tell me. Bruno Sure. I think it is this: http://youtu.be/AP_CSQgBPpQ The angel and the devil both pumping The Wheel of Fortune. Note that once you pull on the wheel, it turns. This generates fate. Could a triangle do the trick as well? If you spin the triangle along an extra dimension and want to avoid the 4 corners of a pyramid, keeping things 3, you get a cone :-) Perhaps the cone of the fate of the waltz, without taking these linguistic tags too seriously. I guess 3 is rhythmically round for its innate properties, including the vicinity of two overly symmetric neighbors: 2 and 4. Usually, you'd think the even values are rounder and feminine and odd ones the opposite, but 2 and 4 are quite the male tyrants of symmetry. If they managed to eliminate 3, we have no more waltzes, or children skipping in the 1-2-3-1-2-3 from side to side, instead of the marching, symmetry-obsessed gait of 2 and 4. For the unconvinced: draw a circle in the air continuously and count 1-2-3 over and over, hitting 12 o'clock (or any distinct spot of your circle), every time you hit 1, in your counting. Now try this with counting to 2. Speed things up a bit and you see that 2 will quickly reduce itself to some back-and-forth thing and make your circles tend towards less roundness. Similar with four. But three keeps your circles and the skipping/dancing we do round: a boy skipping, or having a rounder walk, is seen as effeminate by bigots. It's consistent from this procedural rhythmical perspective that π is some kind of 3. If you want a song that evokes spins, you need 3 here. A carousel spinning with music in 4s or 2s is just wrong. Complain to the operator. Their ride will be more attractive and correct on this level ;-) PGC That's all right on the money, PGC. Recall now the scene of the orbital space station in Kubrick's 2001 - he chose to illustrate this gigantic wheeling object in space with Strauss's Blue Danube waltz which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with space stations, but could not be replaced in that movie with any music that works better. Curiously, Kubrick commissioned Hollywood composer Alex North to compose an entire bespoke score for this film which Kubrick rejected completely when he heard bits of it. I too have heard it (Jerry Goldsmith had it recorded and released a lot later) and the cue North wrote for this scene is paltry compared to the effect of the Strauss. Concerning 3, circles and waltzes, the waltz itself is surely a kind of dance of the solar system in that each couple turn around each other in small circles like planets and moons orbiting each other while the entire dance floor wheels around in a greater circle like the solar system or indeed the galaxy K K -- 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3? Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to music). You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed O Fortuna (the first song of Orff's Carmina Burana) is cast in 3 beats to the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the threeness of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying earlier. Beat in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers. Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. K -- 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. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
On 4 Mar 2014, at 1:33 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Counting this way, you'll hear the macro structure of the main line as composer intended in triple meter. I don't know whether this obfuscates more than it helps enjoyment of the thing, though... especially since composers don't want to make numeric structure too transparent and trivial as they want to give people their money's worth! As a composer myself, I'll tell you what I think the better composers usually do. They use Occam. What is the meter that this thing, this shape in my head fits more or less squarely into. I don't want to have to change the meter signature unnecessarily. So, it's a practical thing, and is based on what would be easiest for the players to process. Musos are great counters, but they start to demand more money if you make the counting too hard... The cross rhythm you experience at the opening is decidedly fraught withwhat you said (so well!) This state of confusion I think is so brilliant because the next thing that happens is this relentless three thing is going to start spinning around unequivocally and drilling down into your head like a Talban commander with a hand-drill. Either you'll get the money or you won't. But rich or poor, you can't take any of it to heaven! In qualia terms the overall triple meter is culprit for the spinning; and the chugging mechanic four note motifs and low blows of orchestra I'd assign to relentless, military judgement of fate and fortune, I guess. That damned wheel keeps spinning: stories of power, threats, shocks, pyramids, fortune etc. here :-) PGC Actually, I think this whole production of Carmina Burana is a total gem. You don't really ever see a staged version of it and this thing was done for - IIRC - German or French TV in the 80s and I can only find the first two movements on YT. I saw the whole thing at the time. Yes, the angel and the devil both keep that wheel spinning, don't they. Bloody thing is spinning out of control right now as Vlad the Conqueror puts the Russian Empire back together. Hail Vladimir! Russia's newest Czar! Sorry, I digress. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip
Hang about. The jolly old joyful Dalai Lama is correct. The meaning of life is happiness. Is there any point disagreeing with that? I mean, which life forms strive for sadness? Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 8 Mar 2014, at 11:56 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:08:39 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: I feel there's a category error here somewhere... I wonder what the Dalai Lama would make of Brave New World ? I think he'd make another killing out of it, on the LA lunch circuit . I don't really buy that guy. Don't see a lot in the eye. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: The way the future was
On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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/d/optout.
Re: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip
On 13 Mar 2014, at 7:44 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Kim, during my escapades in 1944 anti-nazi underground I met a bum in Nazi uniform who p[roclaimed: I was SSOOO happy when I killed those Jews I s that really the MEANING OF LIFE? JM Happiness is an emotion. When all the nonsense and debate and philosophical navel-gazing have run their course, the simple fact remains that happiness is a QUALE. In other words, if you feel happy then you are happy. If killing Jews or killing Americans or killing whales and dolphins, killing flies and cockroaches is what floats your boat then that is indeed an on-ramp to happiness for whomever has worked out how to purchase happiness in this way without incurring any personal cost to themselves. I am perfectly certain that a great many humans derive a degree of happiness from destroying the lives of other humans. This has been happening since Adam wore short pants, anyway. The question of whether or not MY happiness is something that has no cost for YOU is an entirely different matter. By the way, the phrase The Meaning of Life is probably best left as a Monty Python movie title. But, I would contend, happiness has a lot to do with it. PS another phrase best left as a fairy story or a bad song title by the Sex Pistols (to momentarily confuse concurrent threads!) is Money Cannot Buy Happiness. I say bullshit. Happiness is a quale, remember. Buy something that makes you happy. Money will buy cannabis, for example. If you inhale briefly the smouldering incense of burning cannabis you WILL become happy. And, in roughly 7.5 seconds. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
Re: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip
The other thing that occurs to me concerning happiness is that many feel that happiness is something bigger than or more important than a simple feeling or emotion. To say that smoking cannabis makes you happy will almost certainly cause some to react that I am trivialising happiness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anything you do that causes happiness in your life becomes one of your values, and what you value you strive to obtain. If you already have it, you will want to protect it and keep it. There is a problem though, on two fronts. 1. Things run out. If your happiness depends on something material like cannabis or coffee or real estate, you will sooner or later exhaust your supply of it and find yourself running around trying to restock your supply. This is not itself always a particularly happy experience. I often find myself going a version of insane trying to find parking at shopping centres and waiting in long, slow queues to get to the checkout, for example. I have never fully understood why life and survival are totally predicated on obtaining stuff and protecting stuff and consuming stuff. We are happy when we have stuff to consume and when we run out of stuff we then render ourselves unhappy going after it again ( well, at least I do...) The ridiculous and perpetual cycle of Be silent. Consume. Die. 2. Happiness, being a quale, cannot persist, possibly because of 1. (above), though entirely more likely due to the tiring effect of neurotransmitters in the brain. For some reason, the brain develops a tolerance for its own chemicals and happiness ceases to happen after a time because no mental state can persist indefinitely. Just as it is highly unlikely that a fit of anger will last forever, it is highly unlikely that happiness will either since mental states require resources to run and the more powerful the quale, the more resources the body consumes. Just as those who smoke cannabis every day find quickly that it requires more and more of the substance to achieve the desired euphoric effect, any means of achieving happiness will sooner or later not work at all. I mean, after you have bought half a dozen blocks of apartments in Tasmania, is a seventh really going to make you happier than you were after you purchased the sixth? Happiness, for those who love to philosophise it into something other than a simple quale, will be recognisable as that state of mind that does not cease. In other words, no one ever truly experiences happiness since no one - not even the jolly joyful Dalai Lama - has ever experienced a quale that never ends. To take a Buddhist page out of his book though, it becomes the foundation of wisdom to try to seek happiness by means other than running around trying to obtain and replenish stuff. This is surely because any belief in matter and materiality leads to the pain and agony of what I am struggling to describe here. It may be that my fascination for Bruno's Comp is due to its kernel of doubt concerning the supreme importance of matter and the material world. Comp makes me happy. I have yet to fully understand it. Kim -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Quick video about materialism
On 14 Mar 2014, at 1:12 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Information must be made evident through sensory participation, or it is nothing at all. Craig, you have just explained to me the basis of my discalculia. No one else has ever managed to do that in all my 57 years. Music was always instantaneously understandable to me because of the way it gained my deep sensory participation whereas mathematics was always just a bunch of squiggles on paper that to me were as dry as dust and as terrifyingly remote as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Math evoked no sensuous universe of qualia - for me. I have often felt that for those with a high degree of numeracy, that the hieroglyphs of mathematics evoke the same sensory participation as music does for me. Bruno, for example composes and reads mathematical sentences with the same ease as I have in listening to even quite complex music and writing it down from ear in standard music notation. I sometimes refer to myself as a mathemusician. I'll now watch the clip you posted! Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
Re: The best education money can buy.
On 15 Mar 2014, at 5:31 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The Catholic Church had a similar policy, I believe. Give us a person for the first five years and they will be ours for life or words to that effect. Indeed. And - of course, another intention would be to bypass those dangerous freethinking militant radicals that have an undue influence on those young minds: the teachers. On 15 March 2014 19:25, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Despite Canadian support for tar sands oil projects and the Keystone XL pipeline falling to 52 percent in December from 68 percent in April, the decision to include the oil and gas companies in early education is supported by Education Minister Jeff Johnson. Johnson believes that in order 'to build a relevant education system, we need the voice of the employer, the business community, economic development — we need those people at the table.' Seated at Minister Johnson’s table are Suncor Energy Inc., Syncrude Canada Ltd., Stantec Inc., and Cenovus Energy. Syncrude, Stantec, and Suncor will be directly involved with reformations from kindergarten to third grade while Cenovus is included in grades four through six. The Oil majors getting them while they are wee tots believing everything they are told. Go Canada! http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/03/13/education-minister-jeff-johnson-to-teachers-alberta-as-you-know-has-already-embraced-inquiry-based-learning/ -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Quick video about materialism
On 15 Mar 2014, at 8:25 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: So one could play you some Ferneyhough, say Shadowtime, and you'd be able to score it on first listen? I know nobody that has an ear that good, but then every person makes me wrong every day anyway :-) Ha ha h! I don't think anyone can transcribe Ferneyhough. Not even a Watsonesque super computer. The reason is, the music is utterly tied to the notation - not the other way round, which is kind of more natural - in that the sensory qualia of the sounds themselves arise in the mind first and are then transcribed into notation. That's the traditional way. Brian does the reverse; he gets out his slide-rule and his pocket calculator, ingeniously invents a way of organising a composition and then lets the numbers produce the result. He doesn't even aesthetically evaluate his piece; he just stands back and says OK - this is what the numbers and algorithms gave me. Because it's built by explicit algorithms, the result must be accepted since how do you argue with a bunch of numbers??? ;-) Yes, a bit of the false is very much what makes the truth/beauty thing of music work. Music notation is only proximate. The fallible humans that play it are so unreliable in processing those algorithms that - bless me! - they seem to play it differently each time they play it. But strangely, that's what listeners seek from the experience. Brian's music, played live suffers from this as well, but he can always say the musos didn't play it well enough to render it accurately. He is that class of composer who writes computer-music for humans to play. A Universal Machine using machine algorithms to design algorithms for other Universal Machines to play. But they cheat in peformance! Kim -- 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/d/optout.
Hell on Earth
Something tells me these researchers have snorted some Salvia Divinorum. A way of emptying prisons has arrived: you go to prison for some horrible murder or atrocity you commit and the prison sentence is two hundred years. If you are really bad you get a thousand years. In reality, you have only been incarcerated for eight hours. Read on: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2580828/Could-soon-create-hell-EARTH-Biotechnology-let-extend-criminals-lives-makes-suffering-HUNDREDS-years.html Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
Gravity Wave Signature Discovered
Inflation appears now to be evidenced http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/?utm_source=hootsuiteutm_campaign=hootsuite Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered
OK - so I should have written Gravitational Wave (Gravity waves are something else.) K On 18 Mar 2014, at 8:14 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Inflation appears now to be evidenced http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/?utm_source=hootsuiteutm_campaign=hootsuite Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [foar] COMP = no cloning?
On 25 Mar 2014, at 8:00 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor to gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two different locations? To me at least that seems to be essentially cloning you. Richard How many number 2s are there? How many versions of 17 are there? You are a number, which surely makes you unique. You are unique. Just like everyone else.. Kim On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 08:18, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno, How does cloning differ from asking the doctor. Forgive me but it seems that you are being contradictory- just to indicate that this is an important question. Richard If you don't mind me asking, how is Bruno being contradictory? I thought his explanation made perfect sense (assuming comp, of course). -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [foar] COMP = no cloning?
On 25 Mar 2014, at 9:23 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I am not a number! I am a free man! (Sorry...) OK - I've seen The Elephant Man too... ( took me all day to recognise your twisted quote source!) Kim -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback
Thank you Russell I have ordered my copy two. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 26 Mar 2014, at 3:39 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: From your Amazon store near you. http://www.amazon.com/Amoebas-Secret-Bruno-Marchal/dp/1495992799/ 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback
Thank you Russell I have ordered my copy two Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 26 Mar 2014, at 3:39 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: From your Amazon store near you. http://www.amazon.com/Amoebas-Secret-Bruno-Marchal/dp/1495992799/ 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback
Did anyone around here actually want to talk about Bruno's book, the subject of this thread? Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 1 Apr 2014, at 2:37 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I for one found it funny. Jason On Mar 30, 2014 5:30 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 March 2014 17:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Ah, I didn't realise it was a joke. I guess it must be a dig at commitment-phobia, but I can't seem to twist it into something funny. Sorry. I will try harder next time. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Fermi Paradox Zombie Apocalypse
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.8146 Enjoy. I sure did. I think... Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Fermi Paradox Zombie Apocalypse
I started to crack up when they wrote If that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you then you may need to check your pulse. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 2 Apr 2014, at 1:25 am, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I think we have a strong contender for an ig nobel award here! On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.8146 Enjoy. I sure did. I think... Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Fermi Paradox Zombie Apocalypse
Appeared on April 1 Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 2 Apr 2014, at 6:24 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I started to crack up when they wrote If that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you then you may need to check your pulse. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 2 Apr 2014, at 1:25 am, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I think we have a strong contender for an ig nobel award here! On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.8146 Enjoy. I sure did. I think... Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 6 Apr 2014, at 2:23 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's just showing you that your awareness extends beyond your personal definition of here and now Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 6 Apr 2014, at 5:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I am pretty sure of this. Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the children molester, and this in a way making them continue the misdoing for 20 years? Bruno Organised, public religion is quite simply the biggest conspiracy theory of all time. It has been a front for power play ever since someone realised that you can simply tout a personal set of revelations in public and people will swoon and fall into line behind you. Church + Education + Politics = The Holy Trinity of Conformity. These three groups, each individually and in concert with each other, make me feel very disturbed about the future most of the time. Particularly since you have one, (The Catholic Church) which has moved into and colonised another, (Education) and is currently being evaluated for all the damage it has caused there with the growing scandal involving the shielding of child-abusing priests and pedophilic clergy generally. Roman Catholicism is revealed today as about pretty much nothing more than a creche for kiddy abusers. Jesus said suffer the Iittle children to come unto me. Each of the members of The Holy Trinity of Conformity worships its own past and its history to excess. Each promotes the mistaken belief that to study the lessons of History is the only way that mistakes will be avoided in the future. There is a lack of generative, creative thinking skills in The Holy Trinity of Conformity. Every day we hear of the lapse of taste or the outright corruption and fall from grace of people sitting in and between these 3 very special and very powerfully self-serving groups. Each of these power groups assists the other as a real tri-une force for social control. One can only hold the greatest fear for the production of honest and audacious priests, teachers and politicians, since everyone must submit to the HToC. A priest who was married in secret was thrown out of his parish by the Catholic Church. Decades of sexual abuse of students by religious people has gone unreported and undealt-with. Politicians reveal their lack of vision, their misogyny, their sycophancy for religion and all manner of horrific prejudices and fascist-tendencies on a daily basis on the floor of the parliament - and children are meant to derive some kind of role-model from these people. I could go on, but I think you may have the gist of it by now. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout.
