On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of our
existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the
behaviors that we would associate with entities
PS I have to go in a minute to meet my other half to attend this...
http://www.climatevoter.org.nz/debate/
On 3 September 2014 16:31, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
Yes, I am saying that there may
On 1 September 2014 04:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
The Kolmogorov complexity of AGI could be relatively low -- maybe it
can be expressed in 1000 lines of lisp.
That is not a crazy idea because we
On 1 September 2014 16:36, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote:
As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the baby
needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
consciousness
, 2014 at 7:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I'm surprised that there are *no* populous universes anywhere
in the string landscape / level 4 multiverse (if such exist). Or perhaps
it's more likely that there are, but their proportion is so much lower than
our sort that the chances
To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which
hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself.
The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this
refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?)
is that the machines
On 31 August 2014 12:29, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 9:04 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine
which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself.
How can anything be artificial
On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote:
To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine
which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself.
The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I
I should have added - an environment that only involves abstract relations;
it has no referents to a reality richly experienced via senses.
On 31 August 2014 12:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote
On 31 August 2014 13:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/30/2014 5:54 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote:
To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine
which hosts
I think the only test we have available for consciousness etc (for
computers or people) is the good old Turing test. Once our AI starts
killing of astronauts because they may interfere with its main mission (I
was always with HAL on this one, what exactly was the point of those
humans, again?)
On 31 August 2014 17:30, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:55 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
I didn't know him, of course, even online, but I'm always sad to hear that
someone has died. Every man's death diminishes me...
On 29 August 2014 23:18, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
On 29 Aug
On 29 August 2014 18:17, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:01:38AM +1200, LizR wrote:
Yes, I am hoping for a gradual decline ... what does the DDA have to
say
about other sentient species? If, say, the Andromedans were going to
colonise their entire
, LizR wrote:
Yes, I am hoping for a gradual decline ... what does the DDA have to
say
about other sentient species? If, say, the Andromedans were going to
colonise their entire galaxy, we'd almost certainly have been born one
of
them. Does it therefore predict that there will be no vastly
Oops for smie read semi. Damn this no-editing feature!
--
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
On 28 August 2014 17:26, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:18:17PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 25 August 2014 14:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
You have to include all the people who will live in the future, as
well as all those
We saw the above mentioned film last night. The film-maker set out to find
out what all the fuss was about climate science, and whether all those
scientists could be part of some vast hoax - he did this by travelling to
Antarctica and a few other parts of the world (including New Zealand) and
...lets a 9 year old girl play around with an Uzi?
(Well I guess we know, now.)
The most appalling idiocy. Children should not have any guns within reach,
even if they live on farms --- full stop.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Lots of games come with AI :-)
On 29 August 2014 08:05, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Although my POV is aligned with the latter intuition, I actually agree
with the former, but consider the kinds
PS Arnold is hilarious. I recognised quite a few quotes ... but where was
this one?
ENDLESS LOOP - To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to
hear the lamentation of their women.
On 29 August 2014 10:09, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of games come with AI :-)
On 29
Oops I should have read your comments rather than stopping to rattle of my
reply. But I think we agree.
On 28 August 2014 11:27, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree that
* Artificial intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence is the simulation of
intelligence
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140827-quantum-imaging-cats-undetected-photon-science
--
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
On 25 August 2014 14:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
You have to include all the people who will live in the future, as
well as all those who have lived in the past.
Of course, which is why I added assuming a population crash, as per...
With exponential growth
rates
On 27 August 2014 05:31, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, the kind of autonomous human-level (or greater) type
of AI, or AGI, will *most likely* require an architecture, yet to be well
understood, that is of an entirely different nature relative to the kind of
I'll be back!
On 26 August 2014 07:20, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
a super-intelligent machine devoted to the killing of enemy human beings
(+ opposing drones I suppose as well)
This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence
On 25 August 2014 10:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Attacks on anthropic reasoning will work better by choosing a
reference class which is indisputably a subset of the reference class,
such as all human beings, and then demonstrating a contradiction. I
thought I had come up
On 25 August 2014 08:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's because Bruno rejects the link between 1) and 2) and takes
computation to exist in Platonia, independent of physics. So of course
with that assumption physics needs to either be explained from computation
(Bruno's program)
On 25 August 2014 15:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/24/2014 6:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 August 2014 08:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's because Bruno rejects the link between 1) and 2) and takes
computation to exist in Platonia, independent of physics. So
On 25 August 2014 16:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:56:03PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the idea is that quantum randomness is just
first-person-indeterminancy relative to the universes of the
multiverse. The holographic principle would
On 22 August 2014 08:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:00 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing logically inconsistent about a fire breathing dragon
powered by a nuclear reactor in its belly, but that doesn't prove that such
an animal actually
On 21 August 2014 04:55, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Chambers believes that if philosophers can conceive of something then it
must be logically possible, and Chambers can conceive of a smart zombie,
but young children can conceive that 2+2 = 5.
And that objects cease to exist when
On 21 August 2014 04:55, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing logically inconsistent about a fire breathing dragon
powered by a nuclear reactor in its belly, but that doesn't prove that such
an animal actually exists.
Unless you believe that QM necessarily entails a
On 21 August 2014 03:13, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Aug 2014, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/18/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
Yes, I still haven't had a satisfactory answer on what that would mean for
a computation - i.e. what physically differentiates identical computations
On 21 August 2014 02:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Aug 2014, at 01:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/19/2014 3:57 PM, LizR wrote:
Why can't you make a copy? (Is that in practice, until the next
breakthrough comes along, or is it impossible even in principle, like
non-clonable
Is IIUC If I Understand Correctly ? (IIUC?)
On 21 August 2014 13:06, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 09:42:22AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The requirement for observers in my mind makes comp equivalent to the
Copenhagen Interpretation CI
in the
(I don't see why comp is equivalent to the CI, mind you. Or what the
requirement for observers in my mind means...)
On 21 August 2014 13:16, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Is IIUC If I Understand Correctly ? (IIUC?)
On 21 August 2014 13:06, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote
On 21 August 2014 11:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/20/2014 4:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 August 2014 04:55, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing logically inconsistent about a fire breathing dragon
powered by a nuclear reactor in its belly
PS Fire breathing dragoons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon indeed!
Tres amusant.
On 21 August 2014 13:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2014 11:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/20/2014 4:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 August 2014 04:55, John Clark johnkcl
Why can't you make a copy? (Is that in practice, until the next
breakthrough comes along, or is it impossible even in principle, like
non-clonable quantum systems?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On 20 August 2014 04:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If your altered state of consciousness has no self-awareness, is it still
consciousness? And there's self-consciousness, i.e. being aware you are
thinking. So it's not 'fading' qualia, it different categories of
consciousness.
On 20 August 2014 12:53, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
In this vein I offer the well-known limerick of Ronald Knox:
There was a young man who said God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad.
Reply:
Dear
On 20 August 2014 11:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/19/2014 3:57 PM, LizR wrote:
Why can't you make a copy? (Is that in practice, until the next
breakthrough comes along, or is it impossible even in principle, like
non-clonable quantum systems?)
Not in principle. But as I
On 20 August 2014 13:16, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Agreed, but isn't this more akin to a neural network rather than the DNA
of an organism. Our particular network configuration -- e.g. the actual
distribution of neurons and the synaptic
, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/19/2014 4:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 20 August 2014 04:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If your altered state of consciousness has no self-awareness, is it
still consciousness? And there's self-consciousness, i.e. being aware
you are thinking
On 20 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Why would different kinds of consciousness be a grandiose concept?
Different *degrees* of consciousness was the grandiose concept. Different
kinds is fairly mundane.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 18 August 2014 20:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part
of
a computation
On 19 August 2014 06:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're trying to isolate the consciousness from it's context so that it's
just data and patterns and 1s and 0s and neuron pulses. I'm saying
consciousness requires a context, in fact I think it requires a physics.
This is, I
I wish that often, but then I'm (a) pernickety* about grammar and spelling,
and (b) generally in a hurry!
*Or a word spelled something like that!
On 18 August 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:23, LizR wrote:
PS You do know you can delete posts from
On 17 August 2014 17:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 August 2014 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations, which
exist necessarily. Consciousness does not supervene
Max T calculated that the brain doesn't act as a quantum computer because
it isn't an environment in which qubits can be kept isolated from the
environment long enough to support a quantum calculation. Of course he may
be wrong - room temperature quantum computers may be possible, using
effects we
On 18 August 2014 06:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2014 11:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed. This is generally my objection to theories that *require*
conscious observers (and also my objection to people who say 1+1=2 is a
human invention, by the way, since the laws of physics
Now that was an enjoyable and informative post!
On 18 August 2014 12:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But you're looking at our theories as reality.
If you look at them as models we invent to
On 18 August 2014 12:34, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 18 Aug 2014, at 8:16 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 06:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2014 11:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed. This is generally my objection to theories that *require
On 18 August 2014 11:49, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
It got pretty heated when Teg questioned Hameroff back in the day.
OK, I didn't know that.
Teg was correct in an absolute sense that its far to warm inside the skull
to.present a quantum
On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part of
a computation that instantiates physics - instantiates a whole universe
complete with physics.
It would need to instantiate a stable enough
Pierz, you have said exactly the reason why I am willing to give Bruno's
ideas so much time. It's the fact that IF he's right, then he has actually
caught sight of the end of the explanatory chain, which otherwise has only
ever been grounded in an unsatisfactory deity or a chain of turtles -
i.e.
On 16 August 2014 16:48, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I assert this confidently on the basis of my intuitions as a programmer,
without being able to rigorously prove it, but a short thought experiment
should get halfway to proving it. Imagine a lookup table of all possible
additions of two
Um, I hadn't read your subsequent posts when I wrote the above. It looks
like this is quite complicated, and I'm not going to bother my pretty head
trying to be clever about it when you're obviously far more so on this
subject.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 16 August 2014 22:45, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno IMO does not end the chain so-to-speak because he does not say where
the natural numbers come from other than invoking Platonia. Super-string
theory does. But it invokes even more turtles, like where do the ten
dimensions
On 17 August 2014 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations, which
exist necessarily. Consciousness does not supervene on the physics.
Yes, I agreed to that. The question was can consciousness supervene on
computations that do
Never mind, you stated your position nice and clearly, perhaps more clearly
than you normally do on the EL.
(...or is that why you're saying OOPS! ? :-)
On 17 August 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
OOPS! I didn't intend to post this to the everything-list; although it
may
PS You do know you can delete posts from the EL, don't you?
On 17 August 2014 17:23, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Never mind, you stated your position nice and clearly, perhaps more
clearly than you normally do on the EL.
(...or is that why you're saying OOPS! ? :-)
On 17 August 2014 16
I guess we've picked all the low-hanging fruit in Platonia, or wherever
this stuff lives.
--
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
Sounds interesting. I wonder if there will be any new ideas on this topic.
--
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
On 15 August 2014 01:15, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz did you ever get to grips with the counterfactuals business? In case
not, the way I would summarize it is this. Consider a computer game in
which you fly through some 3D landscape. The game is intelligent because
it can respond to
On 15 August 2014 01:45, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
OK so that is back to hard problem, which for people who are
fundamentally interested in engineering is also the uninteresting problem
or the pointlessly distracting problem. For me, software engineer by
trade,
On 15 August 2014 06:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/14/2014 6:45 AM, Pierz wrote:
That is a weird assumption to me and completely contrary to my own
intuition. Certainly a person born and kept alive in sensory deprivation
will be extremely limited in the complexity of the
On 15 August 2014 09:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/14/2014 11:40 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Then it'd be no problem for you guys to clearly spell out what that
environment is.
Yes, that's a problem. The MGA considers a computational sequence that
produces some
On 15 August 2014 09:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you are sniping away at step 0 in the context of discussing step 8.
Sniping is pejorative. Is there some rule I can't question step 0?
Unlike JKC I'm generally willing to take something I doubt as a
hypothetical to see where
On 15 August 2014 12:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/14/2014 4:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 August 2014 06:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/14/2014 6:45 AM, Pierz wrote:
That is a weird assumption to me and completely contrary to my own
intuition. Certainly
On 15 August 2014 12:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's seem like you (and Liz) have a complaint that I don't have some fixed
world view that I'm proposing and defending and which I'm obliged to
explain.
I can't speak for Pierz but my complaint is that you often don't make your
On 15 August 2014 12:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If counterfactual correctness and causal environmental reference are not
needed for consciousness then consciousness will be instantiated by any
sequence of states,
OK. From which I can only deduce that either consciousness isn't
On 15 August 2014 12:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The consequence of assuming that counterfactuals make no difference in
your supervenience thesis is that it implies consciousness supervenes
on a recording. I constantly stumbled over this point too, as it is not
On 15 August 2014 13:10, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 August 2014 12:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's seem like you (and Liz) have a complaint that I don't have some
fixed world view that I'm proposing and defending and which I'm obliged to
explain.
Sorry, I should
On 15 August 2014 14:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I was suggesting that his idea that sensory deprivation would be terrible
was an unjustified intuition based on how *he*, as an adult, would feel
if he were deprived of all sensation. And while the womb does not produce
complete
a comment, which you might try to guess from my
preview post (notably to Brent) on this issue.
On 12 Aug 2014, at 02:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/11/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
I have never got this idea of counterfactual correctness. It seems
to be that the argument goes ...
Assume
On 14 August 2014 15:10, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2014 07:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/13/2014 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2014, at 11:24, Bruno Marchal
On 12 August 2014 17:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/11/2014 9:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 August 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/11/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, I guess a physical UD would be made robust against quantum
uncertainty, like all
Got it, thanks. Not too long so I will be able to read it in the near
future :-)
I hope that is just an honest mistake, Bruno, and no one has been messing
with your email deliberately. Do you have another email you can use? (e.g.
a GMail one)
On 11 August 2014 20:43, Bruno Marchal
:
Let me know when its ready to download?
Oh yes indeed. That is the subject of my first novel, currently in the
process of editing, good post apocalyptic fun set after those people have
more or less achieved their aim.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything
.)
On 12 August 2014 09:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Got it, thanks. Not too long so I will be able to read it in the near
future :-)
I hope that is just an honest mistake, Bruno, and no one has been messing
with your email deliberately. Do you have another email you can use? (e.g.
a GMail
? (if I got that right)
On 12 August 2014 11:03, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I have never got this idea of counterfactual correctness. It seems to be
that the argument goes ...
Assume computational process A is conscious
Take process B, which replays A - B passes through the same machine
On 12 August 2014 12:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/11/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
I have never got this idea of counterfactual correctness. It seems to
be that the argument goes ...
Assume computational process A is conscious
Take process B, which replays A - B passes through
On 12 August 2014 15:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A makes decisions in response to the world. Although, ex hypothesi, the
world is repeating its inputs and A is repeating his decisions.
(I assume you mean B is repeating?)
Note that this assumes QM doesn't apply at the
On 12 August 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/11/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, I guess a physical UD would be made robust against quantum
uncertainty, like all computers, but why do we need to assume QM apply?
The argument assumes it doesn't apply, so
On 10 August 2014 02:15, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
You don't need to alter your politics, simply be aware, that there appear
to be rich people who seek a die-off.
Oh yes indeed. That is the subject of my first novel, currently in the
process of
have
more or less achieved their aim.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 10, 2014 2:05 am
Subject: Re: The game explained to soft ecologist, ecoalarmist and
alternative energy lovers
On 10 August
as connectivity required for the appropriate item. JM
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:05 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2014 02:15, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
You don't need to alter your politics, simply be aware, that there
appear to be rich
On 9 August 2014 06:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Otherwise teleportation will destroy you, so the chances are 0 in each
case.)
Strictly speaking this does not follow, as if comp is false, you might
still survive with the help of some magic. But normally, without using
the
On 8 August 2014 23:42, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
When we look at geophysical forces, the action of biochemistry, over the
long millions of years, humankind is puny. Nature, Biochemistry,
Geo-activity, Evolution, are all neutral things, because it
On 9 August 2014 12:53, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me clear up the German at least.
Heil dem Planeten! = Hail the planet!
Heil(e) den Planeten! = Heal the planet!
Heil der Planet = I'm an asshole
On the puzzle you set us Alberto, ooh ooh, let me try! Gay marriage is
anti-human
On 8 August 2014 09:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are on Earth, and you need, for some reason, to go urgently on Mars.
Bad luck, you can't really afford the 100% secure quantum classical
teleportation channel Earth-Mars, but you have enough money to take a
channel where it
On 8 August 2014 01:58, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe Spud and Alberto should get
On 8 August 2014 03:13, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I knew that the exercise was too hard for many of you.
The exercise was why is gay marriage anti-human ?
I thought my answer was fine. What's yours?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 7 August 2014 10:52, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
You are perfectly predictable. I was sure that the responses, if any would
follow my last paragraph.
This thread will become a meeting of lambs bleating about gay marriage
while traveling happily to the slaugher. Dont count
On 7 August 2014 08:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
I refuse to play this game where you get to knock down such generalization
with partial edited posts, pretending they are held by anybody here in
these strong forms, when you appear to needle and provoke the same
...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/6/2014 4:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 August 2014 08:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
I refuse to play this game where you get to knock down such
generalization with partial edited posts, pretending they are held by
anybody here
On 5 August 2014 23:28, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I have been arguing against not being aware of the premises, not for one
of the premises.
Yes, my apologies, I think you and I are arguing for the same (or similar)
agnosticism. It's Brent who is arguing from an assumed set
On 6 August 2014 04:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
No I do not, the question has a precise answer and does not require
probability, but before I can give you that precise answer I need to know
what you mean by the H-guy. Does it mean:
2) The fellow currently experiencing
1101 - 1200 of 3980 matches
Mail list logo
