Re: Humans Hold Anti-AI, Anti-Robot Protest in Texas

"Elon Musk" and "Ned Ludd" sound oddly similar. On 17 March 2015 at 05:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > http://en.yibada.com/articles/19837/20150316/humans-hold-anti-ai-robot-protest-sxsw-texas.htm > > I wonder how long before AIs hold an anti-human protest. > > Cheers > Telmo. > > -- > You received

Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

On 17 March 2015 at 08:08, PGC wrote: > > That *is* funny because now, Bruno has to justify why for example any > grey diplomat/politician, say Angela Merkel is among the funniest comedians > on the planet... > > Her degree is in Physical Chemistry (surprise aristotelian attack!) I > think, which

Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

Did you actually mean that Bruno or should it be "infinite" - I thought you defined the notion. -- 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-lis

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 March 2015 at 06:49, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Organisms apply pressure on surfaces, even if they are dead. This is >> just a property of chunks of solid matter. Evolution did not create this >> behaviour > > > I disagree. Evolution didn't select

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 March 2015 at 08:59, John Mikes wrote: > LizR: > Consciousness, in my vocabulary sounds like: Response to Relations, not a > mental awarness in thinking/living creatures. Your views may be correct, if > you accept conclusions drawn in the name of the present science upon the

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 14 March 2015 at 07:21, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/13/2015 10:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menez

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 14 March 2015 at 05:44, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks >> are not consciou

Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

But is it as environmentally friendly as the Grass Car? On 14 March 2015 at 07:34, John Clark wrote: > www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEddCLW3SM > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop re

Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

Well of course laughing AT people you dislike is a classic bullying technique. And then you say "oh come on it was only a joke!" Yet bullies never make jokes about themselves, because they are often humourless sociopaths. Dunno if this is on topic but I thought I'd mention it anyway, just in case

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 13 March 2015 at 10:39, John Mikes wrote: > I don't know. > JM > PS did I promise to solve the problems? Telling one's opinion is a free > right, even w/o being obliged to redress things. I fought against > reductionists and faithfuls, > now I simply speak my mind. J. > > That's OK, of course.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

standing of > evolution when it meant (to me) to evolve towards some 'higher > sandard/format' (or call it as you wish) and I saw it as some teleological > aberration.. > Your definition (thanks) still implies a 'better adoption' to some (still) > incomplete view. > I

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 13 March 2015 at 09:21, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are > not conscious. > They aren't? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group a

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 12 March 2015 at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:18 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 3/10/2015 4:35 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 11 March 2015 at 08:30, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> If I develop a theory of consciousness that consi

Re: Carroll and Motul

I rarely get the chance to listen to talks (online or anywhere else) - I don't suppose there's a paper or something giving same ideas? On 12 March 2015 at 14:07, meekerdb wrote: > An excellent talk by Sean Carroll explicating where the gaps are in > Everett's MWI as applied to cosmology and pro

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 11 March 2015 at 06:41, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> it's irrelevant if mater is fundamental or not, either way it wouldn't >>> change the fact that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifiable. >>> >> >> > Nor is a materialistic theory falsifiable.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

model of the world what ELSE may be > around, so conclusions are illusorical.) > I have no idea what you're talking about. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:04 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 12 March 2015 at 13:52, John Mikes wrote: >> >>> That sure would mean &q

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 12 March 2015 at 13:52, John Mikes wrote: > That sure would mean "surviving benefit" - where does the term > "evolutionary" come from and why? > Evolution is reasonably well described as the survival of the fittest. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 11 March 2015 at 08:30, meekerdb wrote: > If I develop a theory of consciousness that consists of statements about > neurons and chemicals and ion flux and it predicts when we will see a > person behaving in the way we call conscious and when not; even predicting > when they will appear sad o

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 11 March 2015 at 10:55, John Mikes wrote: > LizR: "evolutionary benefit??" if so, evolution tends to some end to > achieve. > > Eveolutionary benefit indicates something that helps an organism survive and reproduce better than competing organisms. -- You receive

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 11 March 2015 at 07:18, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/10/2015 10:41 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > I agree that no falsifiable theory of consciousness can be >> materialistic. >> > > It goes far beyond that, no theory of consciousness of any sort is > falsifiable and that's why the subject is such a

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 10 March 2015 at 12:58, meekerdb wrote: > Darwinism would apply to computer viruses if there were computation > among the viruses for resources. > Either a rather good pun or a typo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To u

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 10 March 2015 at 07:16, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Ha! Your points seem unassailable, yet, buy example, how many > neurobiologists are believers in God? This is the crux of the materialism > argument. If God is not wearing cowboy boots and barkin

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

"That is the dematerialising control, and that over yonder is the horizontal hold, up there is the scanner, those are the doors, and that is a chair with a panda on it. Sheer poetry, dear boy. Now please stop bothering me." - Doctor Who -- You received this message because you are subscribed to t

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

ISTM that consciousness has an evolutionary benefit - but it could just be that the ability to pay close attention to everything that's happening, and to do so in an integrated manner, is of evolutionary benefit, and consciousness is a necessary by-product of this process once it become sufficientl

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: > > I thought <>P meant P was possible? > > In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, <> means possible, and [] > means necessary. > Before I get lost in logic, j

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

I thought <>P meant P was possible? If so wouldn't P imply <>P? Or have I misremembered what <>P means? On 7 March 2015 at 21:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote: > > On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > That might depend on the context. Usually, in ou

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 6 March 2015 at 06:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:36, LizR wrote: > > On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it is >> the physical which needs to be redef

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 5 March 2015 at 09:32, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some > normal, or some "perverse bostromian" (made by our normal descendents who > would like to fake our reality). We can test computationalis

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it is > the physical which needs to be redefined in term of a measure (or the logic > of the measure one, of that measure) on the halting programs. > > Yes, that's what I was tryin

The preferred basis problem

For any other bears of little brain who don't grok this (unless I'm the only one) I found this slightly ungrammatical layman's language summary helpful. http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/PreferredBasisProblem.html I have to admit that I don't like the idea of turning into a jellyfish. (Didn't that h

The preferred basis problem

If anyone else doesn't grok what this is all about, I found this explanation in layman's language helped firm things up. It's just a simple (and slightly ungrammatical) overview -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe f

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 4 March 2015 at 13:45, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:31:56AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 4 March 2015 at 11:24, LizR wrote: > > > On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish > wrote: > > >> > > >> Also

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 4 March 2015 at 11:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of >> convention like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why would >> physics care about them? >> > > You have a

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 4 March 2015 at 13:36, Russell Standish wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:16:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > But we choose the measurement operator in a classical context. The > > problem arises when we attempt to construct that classical context > > from the uninterpreted quantum f

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish wrote: > Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020 I've just started reading that paper, and I have a (minor) problem with this statement: "Tegmark introduces an ensemble theory based on the idea that every self consistent mathematical structu

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 4 March 2015 at 09:03, PGC wrote: > But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort, > without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC > > Unless they cause the universe to crash. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 4 March 2015 at 06:17, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote: > > If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or > { } - the empty set? > > I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old fashioned >

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of convention like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why would physics care about them? If they're real, then could they normally be selected by our nature as beings embedded in space-time and hence strongly biased towards variou

2 Natural Philosophers Discuss the Mind

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-natural-philosophers-discuss-the-mind (...they decide it's still a Hard Problem). -- 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, s

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

rsions (eg dead tree, Kindle). > > You want appendix D. > > Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020 > > > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:00:13PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > On 3 March 2015 at 14:54, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > > > It&#x

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3 March 2015 at 14:54, Jason Resch wrote: > > It's available for free on Russell's website. That part is only a few > pages long, I am still trying to understand it myself, but I think it could > be one of the most significant breakthroughs in science if it's sound. > For general reference, d

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 3 March 2015 at 05:23, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 Kim Jones wrote: > > > Ambiguity is some kind of disease, is it? > > > Well...it doesn't exactly help in developing a logically healthy mind. > > >> > Aren't you just expressing your distaste for such things? > > > Yes and no. >

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2 March 2015 at 17:33, John Clark wrote: > >there is no non-local influence in the violation of Bell's inequality. >> > > Maybe, if so then things are not realistic or not deterministic or both. > Or the relevant laws of physics are time symmetric. -- You received this message because you a

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2 March 2015 at 17:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 07:48:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 3/1/2015 6:29 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >>> I remain unconvinced that that probabilities are undefined. Tegmark gave an interesting ve

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Russell, have you a link to your derivation? Or is it in "Theory of Nothing" ? (sorry I haven't read it for a while) -- 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 ema

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 27 February 2015 at 16:51, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: >> >&g

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb wrote: > Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we > made up - so maybe "logically necessary" isn't so necessary after all. I > find it interesting that a lot of "logically necessary" truths were > contradicted by quantum mechani

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote: > >> If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) >> or { } - the empty set? >> > > I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a >

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the empty set? I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It just c

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 1 March 2015 at 16:52, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun >> "you"? Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world >> with only one version of you. What about the

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 1 March 2015 at 14:29, John Clark wrote: > Who's personal experience? > > Bruno makes it clear that he only considers what someone writes in a diary as being what counts for the purposes of the thought experiment. (This is obviously a proxy for memory in most situations, but it simplifies matt

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big problem >>> defining collapse. >> >> > Collapse is easily defined. No one has yet given an adequate account of > probability within the Everettian program

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

On 27 February 2015 at 13:04, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 3:24 PM, LizR wrote: > >> Can you explain the problem a bit more for us dummies? ISTM - probably >> this just shows I don't understand the problem, but I may as well state my, >> ahem, position - that

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb wrote: > > So I reiterate my objection that using "God" is not only obfuscating your > avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the > basis of reality. > I quite like "Tao" - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt fin

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 27 February 2015 at 09:38, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > It is very simple. If we are machine, we are duplicable, and in that >> case, using the precise (3p) definition of 3p and 1p pov I have given (more >> than one times), it is an exercise for high s

Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)

Eek! Now I'm worried that if protein folding goes just a bit too far, my cells will collapse into a black hole. -- 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 t

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

Can you explain the problem a bit more for us dummies? ISTM - probably this just shows I don't understand the problem, but I may as well state my, ahem, position - that all measurements made using a physical apparatus are going to resolve into the position of something, e.g. the position of a point

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: > MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. > > Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability > interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore the > need for the Born rule or they suppose it can be derived fr

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 26 February 2015 at 23:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Feb 2015, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" >> is a brute fact.. > > >> > How can you know that. This is equivalent

Ultraluminous quasar at high redshift

Apparently this looks like a 12bn sun black hole (or collapsed object very much like one) which formed near enough to the big bang that it is causing headaches for astrophysicists trying to explain how it could have grown so large so quickly. http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14241.epdf?referre

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR wrote: > > >> > skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. >> > > I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the > existence of God, but for a word to be

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bell's theorem, as Bell made clear, allows realism and locality if the laws of physics operate in a time symmetric manner. All the known laws of physics do, apart from the mechanism underlying neutral kaon decay. Hence it is likely that Bell's theorem doesn't require quantum mystical nonlocal nonre

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology. -- Eric Steinhart, "Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms"

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb > meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> >> And I don't see anything incoherent about true randomness. We seem >> to have done we

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/23/2015 12:58 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb wrote: > >> But then this undermines the idea that the arithmetic existential >> quantifier provides the same "exists" as ostensiv

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb wrote: > But then this undermines the idea that the arithmetic existential > quantifier provides the same "exists" as ostensive physical existence. > That is clearly not being suggested by comp. Comp suggests that physical existence is "maya" - an appearan

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb wrote: > You seem to take the same view as LizR, "You're either for my theory or > you're for a contrary theory." > > You started it, dear. Since you've already acted many times as though my agnosticism is reall

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

to discern simpler > computational states evolve into higher computational states. QP seems > right up there. > > > -Original Message- > From: LizR > To: everything-list > Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 4:15 pm > Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential > > On 1

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 17 February 2015 at 09:50, John Ross wrote: > This may seem off the subject, but conservation of mass-energy must not be > correct, otherwise our Universe could not have become so large (in terms of > both *mass and energy)*. > > > I believe this is true. Mass-energy isn't conserved on cosmolo

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. >> > > For it to be extraordinary, it would have to be beyond ordinary. However > computationalism isn'

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing-emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary - or do you think it is? It seems like a fairly standard assumption by many scientists and philosophe

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

I'm not happy with an article that deliberately picks on the use of "favourite" to make a spurious argument. It's obvious what was meant - would "preferred" have been better, or "considered most likely" ? That sort of intellectual dishonesty isn't a good start. Then the phrase in the title - "why

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 16 February 2015 at 12:01, John Mikes wrote: > Any 'practical' advice why I should change my position? Anything I should > *KNOW* > about? > Being in the same position as you, all I can say is ... I don't know. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "E

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 15 February 2015 at 07:00, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Being a fool, I ask, Is it possible to do a theology (In the Marchal sense > of the word) from quantum potential? Just asking. > > Assuming quantum potential supports a universal computer, I i

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 14 February 2015 at 07:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Feb 2015, at 11:41, LizR wrote: > > On 13 February 2015 at 18:20, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> John, >> >> Calling 'empty space' 'n

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 14 February 2015 at 06:47, John Ross wrote: > Liz, > > > > A universe from nothing may sound absurd but a universe that has always > existed and had no beginning is more absurd. > Neither of these is absurd. That would just be human preconceptions, based around the domain we evolved in, in wh

Re: evangelizing robots

On 13 February 2015 at 16:40, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/12/2015 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Yes it does assume an unexplainable first intelligence. However, the > unexplainable is simply because of our lack of knowledge of that. The > absence of an intelligent designer is more illogical. I

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 13 February 2015 at 18:20, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > John, > > Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a > confusion. I can only repeat what I said before: > > 'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Now that we've sorted out the acronyms, I'd appreciate a response to the points I made - see below. Empty space *is *the same as nothing. > I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions "why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go to the bother of

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

nuclei with spin may include up to three protons. There are no > neutrons in stable nuclei. > > > > John Ross > > > > *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 February 2015 at 22:50, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Emotion provides an efficacious way to retrieve self-satisfaction, by > bypassing reason, which would be too much slow. > We are "programmed" (by evolution, perhaps) to dislike anything > threatening our satisfaction. That is why a burn is pa

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a "partial zombie" ? (For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a zombie which is partial to chocolate.) -- You received this message because you are sub

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 12 February 2015 at 08:09, John Ross wrote: > Hi Liz, > > > > Good to hear from you again. > > > > Empty space *is *the same as nothing. > I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions "why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go to the bother

Re: evangelizing robots

uates an unconscious mechanism into action would however do it). On 12 February 2015 at 07:48, LizR wrote: > On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason R

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: >>> >>>> On 11 February 2015 at

Re: Robot Dog

We're already willing to attribute sentience to a crude pattern matching programme (ELIZA, was it?), our pets, stuffed toys - and of course in times gone by rocks, clouds, trees, the sea, the stars and so on. I don't think people attributing sentience to something is very meaningful. On 12 Februar

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Hi John As I mentioned before, empty space isn't the same as nothing. It already presupposes the laws of physics, even if it doesn't do much with them they're there. What we're discussing is where the laws of physics themselves come from (and perhaps things they appear to rely on, like maths). It

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR wr

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 February 2015 at 18:35, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/10/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> Were all your values set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of >> your values based on what you've since learned about the world? >> O

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR wrote: > >> I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spock) problem. The Cybermen in Doctor >> Who are logical and unemotional, yet they wish to

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 February 2015 at 17:37, Samiya Illias wrote: > > On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. > > > I stopped reading after the following parochial imbecilit

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: > > I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable > effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain > why we

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Is there a simple explanation for dummies of what an infinitely old universe might entail - is this something like eternal inflation, or an infinitely protracted collapse preceding the apparent big bang, or something else? On 11 February 2015 at 10:41, LizR wrote: > Very interesting, if t

Re: evangelizing robots

I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spock) problem. The Cybermen in Doctor Who are logical and unemotional, yet they wish to convert the rest of the world to be like them. Why? Without emotion they have no reason to do that, or anything else. (Likewise Mr Spock, except as we know he only repressed his

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Very interesting, if true. (So they've removed that pesky factor of 10 to the power of 120 from the calculations...!?) On 11 February 2015 at 10:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cosmology from quantum potential > Ahmed Farag Ali

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

>From Wikipedia I get the idea that he is interested in the technological singularity, mind uploading and suchlike. On 10 February 2015 at 09:16, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > > Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) th

Re: Is it my imagination, or is it getting hot in here?

On 5 February 2015 at 08:08, meekerdb wrote: > Regulation and engineering are not independent. The first think to do > about AGW is replace fossil fuel powerplants (especially coal fired ones) > with nuclear power plants. But the nuclear power plants need to be modern > designs, e.g. molten sa

Re: Is it my imagination, or is it getting hot in here?

ower/regulation. I would opt for 89% engineering solutions, > and 11% regulation. Since we are both serfs, anyway, what would you do for > a AGW fix?? > > > -Original Message- > From: LizR > To: everything-list > Sent: Tue, Feb 3, 2015 7:35 pm > Subject: Is it my i

Is it my imagination, or is it getting hot in here?

2014 was the hottest year on record (Bloomberg) http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/ "Vast methane plumes escaping from the seafloor" discovered in Siberian Arctic Sea (Daily Kos) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/28/1317252/--Vast-methane-plumes-escaping-from-the-sea

Re: NUMERALS

On 4 February 2015 at 08:59, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Note that for 0 you need an invisible stick! But it works. > > I always carry one of those, to fend off Pookas. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this g

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >