Re: Apologies to Telmo
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 July 2014 06:50, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Russell Brand: After last night I can only enjoy football matches where a nation is forced to reexamine its entire identity and way of life. I think we should aim higher: nation forced to reexamine its theological identity to the extent that it affects national doughnut production. Sorry but mention of the World Cup makes me glaze over ... ... a bit like the doughnut :-) Lol, that's ok. I am comparative theology hunter, the changing set of my finest addictions as Thompson would say perhaps, and can't stop sliding into different culture/subculture clothes without too much fanaticism/zeal, just a taste of it, to feel part of the thing and still assess it with some distance. Baseline for me is what would this sound like translated to box with wires aka guitar? How shareable and memorable are the joys on offer if I take the leap of faith to believe? The guitar is the measure theology, if you will. How does theology x under consideration, dance, speak poetry, make doughnuts and fat, how does it make hate and love, what poison/euphoria exists here for whom, how shareable, how many laughs and tears? After Sunday, I will leave the World Cup theology as if it had never existed, although standing with the jocks and engaging collective delusion that what some athletes are doing are our accomplishments and their failures are their idiocy which we judge and expose with snide comment plus appropriate poison, is ok as group thing with clothes. Occasional need for testosterone validation over estrogen one... Whereas the doughnut theology Chris got me into; well this, I have to watch for, as it conflicts with all the panoramic extreme sports theologies (ones that serve to print exceptional views into memories, instead of the extreme risk for its own stupid sake postulate) and their fitness constraints. Without travel and frequent theology changes/dumps/starts, I'd be much more prone to my usual incompleteness/depression and less laughter at this cosmic joke where you never know the next vulgarly violent punch(line) coming your way. Addicted to fresh wardrobes/waters of other theology for fear of the functional imprisonment/reductionism of my own. This freshness feeds directly into material for composition. Just stepping out of routines once can unleash new set of stories I forgot I had. My own core theologies get stale too quickly which is a sad commentary on my life I guess, but there's always compensation in such question, like shot at having most awesome, or second most awesome, kick spherical cow skin around a field theology on Sunday along with millions of fanatics, that I dump, come Monday :-) PGC That was a nice read. I am rooting for Germany out of empathy for my host country, while bracing for the endless fireworks over Berlin. Viel Glück! Telmo. -- 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: Brent's circular ontology [was: Is Consciousness Computable?]
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:51 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote: Brent, You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about something I'm interested in finding out more about. On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it. Intuitively, saying that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to make sense, It's not a causal relationship, it's an explanatory -. Sorry I should have said explains although I thought it was obvious I was using causal in an explanatory sense, not a physical one. Anyway, please continue the explanation. You don't understand what is meant by physics - biology or biology - evolution - mathematics or mathematics - physics? Yes I do. And there you stopped. I'm still waiting for you to continue the explanation. To refresh your memory, you said: OK, except I think the chain is: arithmetic - information - matter - consciousness - arithmetic To which I objected that I couldn't see how this makes sense globally, even if each local step makes sense. You appear to be claiming that there is no such thing as a fundamental explanatory level. Since this flies in the face of 3+ centuries of scientific progress (based on reductionism, which assumes there *is* a fundamental explanatory level) It's just that I noted that fundamental physics has become almost entirely abstract and mathematical, so that people like Tegmark and Wheeler started to speculate that the mathematics *is* the physics. Lists like this that subscribe to everythingism Bruno's comp and Tegmark's MUH completely erase the boundary between math and physics. The 3+ centuries of reductionist physics are also 3+ centuries of explaining things through synthesis of simpler (and presumably better understood) things. At the same time I think mathematics is a human invention, a certain way of looking at the world made precise in language. Humans and their inventions are explicable by evolution, biology, physics,...and mathematics. So maybe the circle closes. The usual objection of a circular explanation is it leaves stuff out, especially if it leaves out all the stuff you understand and just explains mystery X in terms of enigma Y. But if the circle is big enough, if it encompasses everything, then either there's some part you understand and that allows you to reach all the rest; or you don't understand anything and there's no hope for you. OK, thanks, I get all that, and I can see where you're coming from, up to the point where maybe the circle closes. However at that point you appear to have veered off into fantasy (or at least you want to have you cake and eat it too). It may well be that the MUH and comp will turn out to be castles in the air, or whatever is the appropriate metaphor. But I don't think a good way to show this is using something that appears at least equally ridiculous (to me at least, but I suspect others will have the same reaction). It's quite possible that physics is too abstract, but it's certainly less abstract than an explanatory circle in which *nothing* is considered axiomatic. That is equivalent to postmodernist arguments that since everything is part of a linguistic web, we can't actually know or even surmise *anything* about reality. I rejected that viewpoint a few decades ago (I was briefly an ardent postmodernist, at least until I managed to engage my brain) and before I embrace it again I will need some VERY convincing evidence. Then you might like this: http://xkcd.com/451/ That being said, I tend to become a postmodernist when the word explanation shows up. I see science as pure description. I find it is easy to fall into the trap of seeing explanation where none is given. People say to kids: the moon orbits the earth because the earth has more mass and generates a stronger attractive force. But if we look at the equations, this is not what they say. They contain no because. They just describe. The why? is a human construct. Possibly a language construct. I don't find it so unthinkable that it throws us into an ontological loop like Brent describes. I don't agree with postmodernist epistemology. I bet that truth can be approximated by the scientific method. But still, I cannot do more than bet on this. The problem is that I'm not convinced that explanations or causations are part of The Truth. I see them more as tricks that the human mind uses to navigate reality, not so different from the ad hoc conventions we use to communicate. Cheers Telmo. This gives me, at least, the same problem I would have with a time travel story in which a time traveller takes something
Re: Apologies to Telmo
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Telmo, In light of recent nationalist spikes and troughs on the list, heartfelt German apologies for the aggression of our country towards the Portuguese speaking population of our pale blue dot. Eheh, thanks Platonist! I have to be honest, I tuned in when I heard it was 5-0 with a sort of this I have to see feeling. Can't resist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLZUKqpXYzU As Bruno noted: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Patriotism is even good. It can protect you from nazis sometime. But the fact that humans needs to belong to some group to forge his identity can be a problem for the fundamental inquiry, and very often, a problem for the overall political sanity. Soccer cup? That's the modern panem and circenses. bread and game. Why not. it is certainly better than war and blood, but it can often be a way to distract people from some issues. Panem (bread) is good, of course. Tomorrow Germany plays US to prove that they're good at kicking a ball around; Go Germany! Go US! Let us hope the best is the winner! The people needs witches to hunt. May be we need more soccer cup! This post is relevant because in comp, machine theology is consequence, and because all these hundreds of millions Loebians, the ones with German and Portuguese linguistic identity marker (apologies to Africa as well though), have their identity routines mapped through their histories to make Soccer/Football a replacement theology, necessitated by panem and circenses on political stratum. Not German machine fault. Pure QM weirdness in the numbers; merely favorable GGG probabilities on some psychedelic night. So the aggression was never intentional or personal in any way and has various compensation functions instantiated both ways for all machines and their theological identity subroutines involved ;-) Ronaldo machine haircut still rules. And I owe you a drink some day! PGC -- 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: Apologies to Telmo
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations. This message beats any level of politically correct sickness in this self-help group. I will concede that the self-help group remark was funny. 2014-07-09 6:10 GMT+02:00 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com: Dear Telmo, In light of recent nationalist spikes and troughs on the list, heartfelt German apologies for the aggression of our country towards the Portuguese speaking population of our pale blue dot. As Bruno noted: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Patriotism is even good. It can protect you from nazis sometime. But the fact that humans needs to belong to some group to forge his identity can be a problem for the fundamental inquiry, and very often, a problem for the overall political sanity. Soccer cup? That's the modern panem and circenses. bread and game. Why not. it is certainly better than war and blood, but it can often be a way to distract people from some issues. Panem (bread) is good, of course. Tomorrow Germany plays US to prove that they're good at kicking a ball around; Go Germany! Go US! Let us hope the best is the winner! The people needs witches to hunt. May be we need more soccer cup! This post is relevant because in comp, machine theology is consequence, and because all these hundreds of millions Loebians, the ones with German and Portuguese linguistic identity marker (apologies to Africa as well though), have their identity routines mapped through their histories to make Soccer/Football a replacement theology, necessitated by panem and circenses on political stratum. Not German machine fault. Pure QM weirdness in the numbers; merely favorable GGG probabilities on some psychedelic night. So the aggression was never intentional or personal in any way and has various compensation functions instantiated both ways for all machines and their theological identity subroutines involved ;-) Ronaldo machine haircut still rules. And I owe you a drink some day! PGC -- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: Re: Re: American Intelligence
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:38 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue? http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. Thiscompares annual risk of dying http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. You could argue that this is because of the security apparatus that the US has created, but that just doesn't seem credible. The security apparatus only protects you against previous scenarios. Some idiot tried to get in a plane with explosive shoes, so now we have to take off our shoes to board a plane. Some tried a bottle, so now we have to throw away liquids. It's what Bruce Schneier refers to as movie-plot threats: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/seventh_movie-p.html In reality, a terrorist who is willing to die for their cause has billions of options available. It is essentially impossible to protect yourself against someone who is willing to die to harm you. Even more so if the you is fluid: any american civilian will do. The fact that so few people die each year on terrorist attacks strikes me as strong evidence that there is no credible threat. Telmo. -- 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.
QM and oil droplets
Hi all, I would like to know what people here make of this... http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality Cheers Telmo. -- 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: Speaking of free speech...
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 July 2014 23:05, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see how the university can stop the student union from banning things if they want to, I guess, assuming the student union owns the buildings in which such bans apply. I don't think the union's likely to own any buildings on the college campus - only their HQ in Malet Street (where I once went to see Arthur C Clark give a talk :-) ... I'm envious! but they may well be able to make life difficult for anyone who wants to do banned things by, essentailly, bullying them politely until they stop. I wonder how you bully someone politely :) As I think you already said, they can always convene in the local cafe. This all reflects far worse on the U.L.U. than it does on the Neitzsche Soc. Perhaps for you and me, but I worry about the perception of the majority these days. I remember when my philosophy teacher in high-school made us watch Fahrenheit 451. At the time it felt like a dated message. I was under the impression that the idea of banning certain books was a thing of the past. Now I feel that the film is relevant again, and that it would be good if a lot of people watched it. This scares me. Cheers, Telmo. -- 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: Speaking of free speech...
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see how the university can stop the student union from banning things if they want to, I guess, assuming the student union owns the buildings in which such bans apply. but then I can't see how the SU can stop students from forming a club either! This all seems rather weird... as you say they can just meet in a bar or cafe if they want to. Wasn't it students calling for someone to be stoned recently, in a slightly nastier example of students trying to uphold idiotic laws? (In my day students GOT stoned, damn it. Never thoght I'd be holding that up as an example of moral rectitude...) On 1 July 2014 00:29, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: This seems to be a student union thing. Maybe the university should intervene and ban the student union from banning things. It probably will, for the sake of it's own reputation. I can't help but desire that the university does not intervene, though. It is perhaps more instructive to let the students experience, in a somewhat safe environment, what happens when you give absolute power to ideologues, and let them figure out how to recover freedom in their own terms. The Neitzsche club people are smart, they will hold meetings in the Starbucks in front of the university and embarrass the apprentice censors. Cheers Telmo. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Nothing like a good university stimulate intellectual debate - about who should be prohibited from debating and what should not be mentioned. Brent On 6/29/2014 10:41 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/university-college-london-s-nietzsche-club-is-banned.html This is sheer insanity, to quote that bloke from Dad's Army. I can only hope that the Neitzsche Club will not be killed off, but made stronger - and if it *is* full of rabid ideogogues misrepresenting Friedrich's ideas, let them do it in public so everyone can have a good laugh. -- 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: Speaking of free speech...
This seems to be a student union thing. Maybe the university should intervene and ban the student union from banning things. It probably will, for the sake of it's own reputation. I can't help but desire that the university does not intervene, though. It is perhaps more instructive to let the students experience, in a somewhat safe environment, what happens when you give absolute power to ideologues, and let them figure out how to recover freedom in their own terms. The Neitzsche club people are smart, they will hold meetings in the Starbucks in front of the university and embarrass the apprentice censors. Cheers Telmo. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Nothing like a good university stimulate intellectual debate - about who should be prohibited from debating and what should not be mentioned. Brent On 6/29/2014 10:41 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/university-college-london-s-nietzsche-club-is-banned.html This is sheer insanity, to quote that bloke from Dad's Army. I can only hope that the Neitzsche Club will not be killed off, but made stronger - and if it *is* full of rabid ideogogues misrepresenting Friedrich's ideas, let them do it in public so everyone can have a good laugh. -- 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: American Intelligence
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:14 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. Indeed. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. Of course. So, if one fights, why hold back? Probably because the war was started on false pretences and there was no real threat to being with. Observe, the results of the US's partial warfare model, and decide for yourself if it has been a brimming success or not? I wouldn't call it partial warfare, but instead the initiation of war for its own sake. In real wars, against people your own size, like WWII, no half-measure were took. No one in their right mind desires such a war. If you do, I suspect that participating in one would quickly change your mind. The nuclear war thing, I likely fret more about then any.other participant, on this mailing list. The primary reason for this is that fission, and fusion weapons, are now very old, and the missile tech to carry the bombs are only a bit younger. If I was a citizen of Europe, I would be very concerned that the deliberate diminishment of US power, would invite aggression from places where it would have seemed a laughable, fiction, only a decade ago. To wit, you folks are now on your own, with the current US leadership. It may not bother you, even a bit, but I see that this is a new geopolitical fact. Be well. I am not for the deliberate diminishment of US military power. I have nothing against it if used only as a deterrent. In a world where nuclear weapons are possible, we must have nuclear weapons. My problem (and a common sentiment in Europe) is with the USA initiating unnecessary wars against weak opponents. Civilisation clash style wars had their penultimate instalment with WWII. If if happens again, it will probably be for the last time, and everyone is aware of this. The geo-political conditions that you allude to are a thing of the past, that's all I'm saying. Keeping deterrent weapons in good condition and attacking failed nations for the control of cocaine fields are two very different things. Even the dubious nuclear power of North Korea is sufficient to let them get away with total insanity. I'm sure Europe is safe, given the real nuclear power of France, the UK and all the US military bases around. Cheers, Telmo. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 29-Jun-2014 18:35:58 + Subject: Re: American Intelligence I support mil actions as long as its fought like total war. Think WW2. Note, that nuanced responses have done little since WW2, although the Korean War is the most solid, maybe? If its worth fighting, then its worth willing to the max. Nuanced responses became quite popular after WW2 because of the invention of atomic bombs. Any civilisation that you can clash with will offer you MAD. Witch is an apt name, because you have to be batshit crazy to desire war. -- 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: American Intelligence
I support mil actions as long as its fought like total war. Think WW2. Note, that nuanced responses have done little since WW2, although the Korean War is the most solid, maybe? If its worth fighting, then its worth willing to the max. Nuanced responses became quite popular after WW2 because of the invention of atomic bombs. Any civilisation that you can clash with will offer you MAD. Witch is an apt name, because you have to be batshit crazy to desire war. -- 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: American Intelligence
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:58 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2014 02:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The expression war on terror is already suspicious in that regard. Terrorists can only applaud. What an advertizing on their cause and methods. It always struck me that the West's to reaction to 9/11 was exactly what al Qaeada wanted. Me too. In fact, I find it painfully obvious... If there is in fact an unconventional war against western freedoms going on, then al Qaeda is winning it. -- 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: American Intelligence
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Right off the bat: sorry for this slightly OT post. There is stuff about discrimination/labeling in the linked video clip below, concerning the profound truth of All men are rats, however. Higher standards, here we come! On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I have to say, I find it a bit silly when people identify too much with their nationality (or profession, or gender...) to the point that they get offended when a generic remark is made. It is fairly obvious that Kim is not suggesting that Chris or Brent or any other specific American in this list is a person of low intelligence. The generalisation per se might be without merit, but even so it's perhaps a good exercise in to learn to tolerate it. We have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of any of our respective countries. Why care so much about imaginary lines in the ground? Because without it, opium for the masses like FIFA world cup makes less sense, and people would start to realize and have more time to ponder that they are getting shafted... and by whom. Yup. Also we need to get rid of those immigrants stealing all our jobs and vote hard right. At least that's what civilized Europe is doing increasingly. I want to believe that this is a passing fad of populism festering on the economic recession. Yes, same here. Grain of salt is: in Weimar Republic this reasoning was quite similar with intellectuals until it was too late. I know... What is left/progressive in the states is somehow moderate business as usual in Europe, dead center... But this matters little as foe example the general state prosecutor in Germany finds no concrete indication of spying in the wake of Merkel scandal and snowden. Word is he styles himself as keeping peace in international relations, servant to German state interests. This reminds me of how Berlusconi reacted to WikiLeaks. Something along the lines of: this is so funny, now everyone can see that they are all like me. Of course we need measures to oversee ideological nutjobs activity/dangerous tech movements etc. But the manner in which this is conducted needs more scrutiny: In terms of ideological nutjobs, I suspect that the solution is counter-intuitive. Instead of fighting them, perhaps it's better to not react to them at all. Treat a skinhead like a perfectly normal person and the skinhead is destroyed. The feeling of persecution is exploited in recruiting people to these organisations. if we can only keep ourselves secure by agreeing to do each others' dirty laundry, bypassing other sovereign nations' laws, so they may bypass our own, then I don't see why this isn't perceived as dangerous and cynical; and because of legal complexity times digital age, even counterproductive to security on all levels of democratic model (multiplying hacker warfare etc). I think the illusion that has to be broken is very much related to patriotism. Merkel, Obama, Hollande, etc. have more allegiance to each other than to their citizens. It's naive to assume that Merkel is German of Obama is American. They are world leaders and belong to the cast of the world leaders. They feed on patriotism to act against their people. In a globalised western world, patriotism is the old strategy of divide and conquer. If everybody does it justification would hold sway in courts the way it does here internationally... So you're saying this, but really, you are lamenting Portugal's performance ;-) PGC Eheh. Hey, Ronaldo had the best haircut though :) By far! But through long hard work, if time is on our side, we'll naturally gravitate to better role models/exemplars. I can't resist sharing what my favourite comedian (American, btw) has to say about nationalism and hating immigrants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4 He has an indoor smoking permit? In many places, smoking on stage is allowed if part of an artistic performance. I heard him joke about how he exploits this rule just because he wants to smoke. Unbelievable, you'd think that people would drop dead next to him due to passive inhalation! Gosh what chicken have we become when all jazz bars must be smokeless, no exceptions! It's depressing. While our pollution, all the threads this has spawned, Liz's thread with the pesticides...ok. In appreciation of Telmo's link, here's a recent one you might not have caught yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXvJqiyiMqQ The all men are rats statement, its discriminatory impact, and the gender aspect finally receives thorough treatment there. Nice :) Telmo. PGC -- You received
Re: American Intelligence -- Thinking about Thinking
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 2:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote: Muslims accept Christians and Jews as 'people of the book'. They consider that Islam is merely the latest edition of the same book or religion. Not merely the latest but THE LAST. God willing! :) Telmo. Brent -- 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: American Intelligence
I have to say, I find it a bit silly when people identify too much with their nationality (or profession, or gender...) to the point that they get offended when a generic remark is made. It is fairly obvious that Kim is not suggesting that Chris or Brent or any other specific American in this list is a person of low intelligence. The generalisation per se might be without merit, but even so it's perhaps a good exercise in to learn to tolerate it. We have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of any of our respective countries. Why care so much about imaginary lines in the ground? Cheers, Telmo. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Of course my founding post to this thread was racist. It was a clear attempt to label a box and to shove all Americans in there. Not very smart, you suppose. Not if I myself were unconscious of the inherent racism of what I said. But I was fully conscious of it. Is that still racism? It's not that I am a racist, but I definitely felt there to be a point in saying something that might strike others as racist because this is a good way to put people on their toes. It was done for a purpose to do with creative thinking. That purpose is an operation known as provocation. I am provoking others to respond, in order to see the thinking. In fact I am not racist at all because I admire Americans greatly. How could one not. But I wrote something racist in order to see whether some others might see that they were being provoked. Provocation is sometimes necessary in order that people see things they feel they know very well in a new light. Creative thinking is taking existing information and extracting new value from it. For example, had I said the following: America is the land of the free. America champions the cause of freedom the world over and will fight fiercely to maintain a free world. Americans are all natural-born entrepreneurs and understand business in an intuitive way better than anyone else on the planet. Anyone can succeed with a new idea in America because Americans love a new idea and will get behind it and help it to come to fruition, particularly if that idea helps support the cause of freedom and successful entrepreneurial business enterprises. - would I still be guilty of racism? The mental operation is identical; I have a box and I am shoving an entire country into it. The point should be clear: what motivates all thinking are the values espoused by the thinker, and those values are based on their 1p experiences. That's what perception is. Perception is first order thinking which is to say more a statement about ourselves, not at all the thing we would like others to believe we are talking about. The very first thing we experience in any exchange or encounter with the outside world is not the outside world at all, but ourselves. We meet ourselves in everything we say and do. To continue with perception for a moment: I said above that Americans love freedom, America is the land of the free etc. All this is true. But it is true in only a limited sense. It is true in the sense that choices are able to be made without coercion or force being applied. For example, an man sits at a table in a restaraunt in France and is presented with a choice of beverages. There is wine, there is cognac, there is cider, there is champagne and there is Budweiser beer. The man freely chooses the beer. A free choice is made. But the choice is made not out of curiosity but out of familiarity. Is that still freedom of choice? If you are ignorant of the qualities of the various alternatives to your preferred choice, in what sense are you making a free choice? More likely you are shackled to your preference. When we do creative thinking, we learn to take familiar situations and traverse a different path in thinking about them. This requires training and is not at all a natural habit of mind. 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. -- 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: American Intelligence
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I have to say, I find it a bit silly when people identify too much with their nationality (or profession, or gender...) to the point that they get offended when a generic remark is made. It is fairly obvious that Kim is not suggesting that Chris or Brent or any other specific American in this list is a person of low intelligence. The generalisation per se might be without merit, but even so it's perhaps a good exercise in to learn to tolerate it. We have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of any of our respective countries. Why care so much about imaginary lines in the ground? Because without it, opium for the masses like FIFA world cup makes less sense, and people would start to realize and have more time to ponder that they are getting shafted... and by whom. Yup. Also we need to get rid of those immigrants stealing all our jobs and vote hard right. At least that's what civilized Europe is doing increasingly. I want to believe that this is a passing fad of populism festering on the economic recession. So you're saying this, but really, you are lamenting Portugal's performance ;-) PGC Eheh. Hey, Ronaldo had the best haircut though :) I can't resist sharing what my favourite comedian (American, btw) has to say about nationalism and hating immigrants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4 Cheers Telmo. Cheers, Telmo. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Of course my founding post to this thread was racist. It was a clear attempt to label a box and to shove all Americans in there. Not very smart, you suppose. Not if I myself were unconscious of the inherent racism of what I said. But I was fully conscious of it. Is that still racism? It's not that I am a racist, but I definitely felt there to be a point in saying something that might strike others as racist because this is a good way to put people on their toes. It was done for a purpose to do with creative thinking. That purpose is an operation known as provocation. I am provoking others to respond, in order to see the thinking. In fact I am not racist at all because I admire Americans greatly. How could one not. But I wrote something racist in order to see whether some others might see that they were being provoked. Provocation is sometimes necessary in order that people see things they feel they know very well in a new light. Creative thinking is taking existing information and extracting new value from it. For example, had I said the following: America is the land of the free. America champions the cause of freedom the world over and will fight fiercely to maintain a free world. Americans are all natural-born entrepreneurs and understand business in an intuitive way better than anyone else on the planet. Anyone can succeed with a new idea in America because Americans love a new idea and will get behind it and help it to come to fruition, particularly if that idea helps support the cause of freedom and successful entrepreneurial business enterprises. - would I still be guilty of racism? The mental operation is identical; I have a box and I am shoving an entire country into it. The point should be clear: what motivates all thinking are the values espoused by the thinker, and those values are based on their 1p experiences. That's what perception is. Perception is first order thinking which is to say more a statement about ourselves, not at all the thing we would like others to believe we are talking about. The very first thing we experience in any exchange or encounter with the outside world is not the outside world at all, but ourselves. We meet ourselves in everything we say and do. To continue with perception for a moment: I said above that Americans love freedom, America is the land of the free etc. All this is true. But it is true in only a limited sense. It is true in the sense that choices are able to be made without coercion or force being applied. For example, an man sits at a table in a restaraunt in France and is presented with a choice of beverages. There is wine, there is cognac, there is cider, there is champagne and there is Budweiser beer. The man freely chooses the beer. A free choice is made. But the choice is made not out of curiosity but out of familiarity. Is that still freedom of choice? If you are ignorant of the qualities of the various alternatives to your preferred choice, in what sense are you making a free choice? More likely you are shackled to your preference. When we do creative thinking, we learn to take familiar situations and traverse a different path in thinking about them. This requires training and is not at all a natural habit of mind. Kim -- You received this message because
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks they are creative because of it. I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more creative than not juggling, at least a little. Ok, I'll admit it. Its just that in today's world most don't find watching a person juggle to be very interesting, but it's more interesting than watching a person just sit there and stare blankly into empty space. Right, but this already contains a clue that interesting is more relevant than difficult when it comes to creativity. But it begs the question a little bit, because you could define creativity as the ability to generate interesting things. Of course, you could then say that generating interesting things is difficult, but I would say that it's a very specific type of difficulty, that doesn't generalise well to all cognitive tasks. (thus my accountant example) I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty. It needs one more attribute, it needs to be interesting; firing a paintball gun at a canvas will produce a novel pattern never before seen on this planet, but it is unlikely to be judged very interesting by many. Again, I was trying to avoid interesting to not get into a circular definition. Therefore creativity is not in the thing itself but in the eye of the beholder; what's new and exciting to me may be old hat and boring to you. Agreed. Then novelty is also in the eye of the beholder, and at a certain level of abstraction there is nothing novel about a paintball pattern for most people. It might look novel to some naive pattern recognition algorithm. Higher level image recognition might always say this is a paintball pattern, no matter what the specific pixels are. It will also take higher level modelling of human minds and culture to be able to decide if a paintball pattern is novel, or interesting to a human. My point is that equating creativity with difficulty seems to simplistic. Creativity is difficult, but it doesn't follow that difficult is creative. Telmo. John K Clark -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. Kim, what do you think of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna I find that very exciting indeed, Telmo. This indeed looks like real creativity to me. The process of selecting the right shape came about by a random generator followed by evaluation of usefulness. That's precisely what Lateral Thinking is and does. Glad you liked it! This bit is even more to the point: The resulting antenna often outperforms the best manual designs, because it has a complicated asymmetric shape that could not have been found with traditional manual design methods. Creativity involves CURIOSITY (Suck it and see...). There is some kind of attractor that pulls the interest, the attention for a human that sends the mind in a certain direction. Judgement is suspended while exploration takes place. The machine on the other hand can approximate that with random choice algorithms. This is something that I always felt strongly about: the importance of randomness in true AI. I find it somewhat surprising how it is absent from most discussions of AI, excluding the evolutionary computation community. The only thing missing here from this is self-awareness. Maybe... Otherwise I would say we have the basis of personhood. So, I was wrong. A machine can pull something out of nothing. It's still a bit zombified but getting close. Thanks. Cheers Telmo. 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. -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations better than Mathematica? I don't think so. Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs definitely. Bullshit. Chess programs have been beating their programers for over 20 years and Mathematica can beat its programers too. There are new solutions being discovered all the time, And Mathematica is being upgraded all the time. and its by humans, But those humans don't get credit for doing that because they were taught by other humans; it's Einstein's teachers who should get the credit for discovering relativity not Einstein. But then again, Einstein's teachers had teachers too and so Mathematica's integrate operator (and the equivalent desolve operator) is basically a convenient interface that applies standard algorithms such as [blah blah] Anything no matter how grand and impressive and awe inspiring can be broken down into smaller parts that are themselves a little less grand and impressive and awe inspiring than the whole, and those parts can themselves be broken down into sub-parts that are even less grand and impressive and awe inspiring. Eventually you will come to a part that is pedestrian and dull as dishwater (like a switch that can only be on or off); do we then conclude that grand and impressive and awe inspiring things don't exist? Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task. Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task performed by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself. Therefore it's true that creativity is not related to the absolute difficulty of the task but it is related to how difficult it would be for you to do it; so what's creative to you might not be for me. I agree that image recognition is computationally difficult. But its not creative. You say that for only one reason, you find image recognition to be easy. But if it took you a month of intense concentration to tell the difference between a whale and a watermelon and then you met a man who could tell the difference between a Grey Whale and a Humpback Whale in one second flat you'd say he was wonderfully creative. I don't think this analogy holds. For example, most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks they are creative because of it. Accountants used to be able to sum columns of numbers much faster than the average person. They are the stereotype for non-creativity. I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty. Maybe coherent at the human-brain level. Here are a number of things that are quite creative but not necessarily hard to create: http://www.reddit.com/r/fifthworldpics The problem with AI-generated art is perhaps similar to the problem with the Turing test: the only way to win is by faking something. Genuine AI art might only be appreciated by other AIs. Telmo. John K Clark -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. Kim, what do you think of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna -- 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: Democracy
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 3:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo: I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word 'democracy' as the rule Cratos of DEMOS. the totality of people. You (and probably others, too) mean It as a practical political format based on expression of desire by MANY (majority - called) 'voters'. John, I agree with your definition. My fear is that democracy cannot be protected from a collapse into a dictatorship of the average, and a misinformed average in the worst case. I would say that it becomes a dictatorship when it starts to legislate on things that it has no ethical basis to legislate on, usually in the guise of fear and the public interest. Thus the wars on nouns... Although it sounds commendable, it also is an oxymoron: not T W O people want the same (interest, policy, advantage, style and 1000 more, if you wish) so the 'voting' (hoax) is a compromise about those lies of the candidates: which are LESS controversial compromise - as formulated during the campaign. (It has little impact on the real activities an elected politician will abide by indeed). Ok. One thing is for sure: a MAJORITY vote implies a subdued MINORITY as a rule (in the US lately arond close to half and half). Furthermore I see no so callable democracy neither in authoritarian (religious, fascistic) systems, nor in extreme 'populist' attempts, like the Marxist-base, communist, or socialist (called in these parts: liberal) systems. Agreed. The CAPITA:ISTIC (evolved slavery?) variations are aristocratic/feudal at best, if not aristocratic/fascistic, ie. plutocratic. (I call it Global Economic Feudalism). This is true of modern global capitalism, no doubt. What do you propose? Best, Telmo. You and John Mikes are taking the original, literal meaning of democracy; rule by majority vote of the demos (which was not *all* the people, but let that pass). The more modern conception is constitutionally limited government; one in which there is a difficult to modify constitution that limits the scope of government(s) and ensures there scope for individual and community freedoms. There's an extra lock in the door, but it doesn't stop being a door. The majority can remove the restrictions on the scope of government. In practice, this doesn't seem to be necessary: constitutions are being removed by being declared unfashionable, and the majority referes to those who demands that their individual freedoms be respected as constitution nuts. The freedoms of the minorities exist only at the discretion of the majority. The only hope for democracy is that the majority can be sane (and remain sane). Unfortunately, many in middle-east ignore this last part and take democracy to mean that whoever is in the majority can impose their ideas at every level from foreign relations to what food can be eaten. Both American and EU governments (and I suspect other western powers are not different) currently start wars as they please, fund all sorts of military and para-military movements in other countries and heavily regulate which foods we can eat. The raw milk prohibition is one of the favourite tropes of the libertarians. Telmo. It is an unfortunate feature of Islam that it doesn't recognize a separation of church and state (and neither did Christianity until it was forced upon it). Brent -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 June 2014 03:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Spudboy (whatever that may mean) I was 22 when burried under bombing ruins during WWII - and dug out by the enemy due to my good fluency in their language. I was also arrested by a Gestapo-like facility (talked out myself) and later by the commis for questioning. So I have personal experiences. I was NEVER in uniform, never a soldier and never participated in violent actions. All I did was save lives using the underground activities. I yell: NO WARS!!. I don't recognise the problems as such, they are mostly man-made corruption-based policies of crooks. On ANY side. Heroes? rather victims. What business of the USA and Europe is to take part in a religious war dating back ~1500 years about the successor of the Prophet? They could manage fine: Saddam Hussein (Sunni) kept Iraq at bay and Assad (Shia) Syria, until the region's oil triggered the profit-hungry forces into aggression. The US stabbed Mubarak in the back (a 'friend' of over 30 years) and liberated a jihad - indeed a competition between the Saudi and Iranian oil, Then supported the arch-enemy: AlQaeda (and ilk) plus the Muslim Brotherhood - now declared by Egypt a terrorist movement. Afghanistan became an oil-sideline to get the Central Asian oil to the Indian Ocean. And there comes the profit of the war-related industrials. I apologize for the not quite 'TOE' text. Fine by me. You have my sincere admiration. Ditto! We would be foolish not to want to read what someone with John's experiences has to say. -- 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.
Democracy
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo: I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word 'democracy' as the rule Cratos of DEMOS. the totality of people. You (and probably others, too) mean It as a practical political format based on expression of desire by MANY (majority - called) 'voters'. John, I agree with your definition. My fear is that democracy cannot be protected from a collapse into a dictatorship of the average, and a misinformed average in the worst case. I would say that it becomes a dictatorship when it starts to legislate on things that it has no ethical basis to legislate on, usually in the guise of fear and the public interest. Thus the wars on nouns... Although it sounds commendable, it also is an oxymoron: not T W O people want the same (interest, policy, advantage, style and 1000 more, if you wish) so the 'voting' (hoax) is a compromise about those lies of the candidates: which are LESS controversial compromise - as formulated during the campaign. (It has little impact on the real activities an elected politician will abide by indeed). Ok. One thing is for sure: a MAJORITY vote implies a subdued MINORITY as a rule (in the US lately arond close to half and half). Furthermore I see no so callable democracy neither in authoritarian (religious, fascistic) systems, nor in extreme 'populist' attempts, like the Marxist-base, communist, or socialist (called in these parts: liberal) systems. Agreed. The CAPITA:ISTIC (evolved slavery?) variations are aristocratic/feudal at best, if not aristocratic/fascistic, ie. plutocratic. (I call it Global Economic Feudalism). This is true of modern global capitalism, no doubt. What do you propose? Best, Telmo. One more request: could we mark this discussion AWAY from a bouncing back Pluto? Regards John Mikes On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time, You are right and I'll shut up now :) Please don't shut up! As long as we stay polite the fun is in the conversation, ... in the detours sometimes. My main motivation for shutting up here is that I fully agree, but sometimes forget, that freedom is 1p. I do feel bad for going off-topic. I think that you and others, who contribute a lot to the main topic of this mailing list, deserve more leeway than me in going off-topic. So since you're asking, I feel comfortable with arguing a bit more. (I was being sarcastic when I said the politician misspeak. I was referring to the sort of doublespeak and euphemisms they employ. Of course they lie.) The reason why I suspect that democracy is not stable, is that it might always degrade to a Keynesian beauty contest. Modern democracy originated from enlightenment ideals, of raising human potential -- raising the average. The trouble is that, the best strategy to win elections is to pander to the average. A political movement that attempts to raise the average will lose to the Keynesian beauty contest players in the long term. So I am arguing that democracy contains in itself the evolutionary pressure that generates its own demise. I hope I'm missing something. Best, Telmo. Thanks I thank you, Bruno it is not that easy when we are two, saying nothing about three and more. -- 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. 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/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
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time, You are right and I'll shut up now :) Please don't shut up! As long as we stay polite the fun is in the conversation, ... in the detours sometimes. My main motivation for shutting up here is that I fully agree, but sometimes forget, that freedom is 1p. I do feel bad for going off-topic. I think that you and others, who contribute a lot to the main topic of this mailing list, deserve more leeway than me in going off-topic. So since you're asking, I feel comfortable with arguing a bit more. (I was being sarcastic when I said the politician misspeak. I was referring to the sort of doublespeak and euphemisms they employ. Of course they lie.) The reason why I suspect that democracy is not stable, is that it might always degrade to a Keynesian beauty contest. Modern democracy originated from enlightenment ideals, of raising human potential -- raising the average. The trouble is that, the best strategy to win elections is to pander to the average. A political movement that attempts to raise the average will lose to the Keynesian beauty contest players in the long term. So I am arguing that democracy contains in itself the evolutionary pressure that generates its own demise. I hope I'm missing something. Best, Telmo. Thanks I thank you, Bruno it is not that easy when we are two, saying nothing about three and more. -- 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. 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/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: Pluto bounces back!
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jun 2014, at 15:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time, You are right and I'll shut up now :) Please don't shut up! As long as we stay polite the fun is in the conversation, ... in the detours sometimes. My main motivation for shutting up here is that I fully agree, but sometimes forget, that freedom is 1p. I do feel bad for going off-topic. I think that you and others, who contribute a lot to the main topic of this mailing list, deserve more leeway than me in going off-topic. So since you're asking, I feel comfortable with arguing a bit more. (I was being sarcastic when I said the politician misspeak. I was referring to the sort of doublespeak and euphemisms they employ. Of course they lie.) The reason why I suspect that democracy is not stable, is that it might always degrade to a Keynesian beauty contest. Modern democracy originated from enlightenment ideals, of raising human potential -- raising the average. The trouble is that, the best strategy to win elections is to pander to the average. A political movement that attempts to raise the average will lose to the Keynesian beauty contest players in the long term. So I am arguing that democracy contains in itself the evolutionary pressure that generates its own demise. I hope I'm missing something. Democracies are not stable, like all living beings are not stable, and somehow they always generate their own demises. But we make children and dialogs, and we can hope, and work for, that the children will not commit our mistakes. Ok, but my fear is the opposite: that democracies stabilise too early and in a way that removes choice (because the available choices converge due to the beauty contest). I see democracy as the zero stage of democracy, Only a logician would say something like this :) and it is well capable of making us see the omega stars, but like a rocket, it is unstable, and it can crash ,just after starting, ... so well, we build a new rocket and try again, hoping we fix the preceding mistake, a bit like in the crash investigation series. Ok, but then I start to suspect that our disagreement is on terminology. I think you have a broader definition of democracy than me. No reason to fear the average, as the average cultivated man like the differences and can respect different life styles. My fear is not of the average person but of the averaging of available choices and the subsequent deadlock that this can introduce on any further progress. In a non-democracy you get mafias all the time, in democracy you get mafia only when the democracy is sick. Democracies are young on this planet, you just miss again the time factor. Fair enough. Of course it is our work and responsibility to denounce the injustice, but today the net is useful for that. Let us keep it that way! Completely agree. Telmo. Bruno Best, Telmo. Thanks I thank you, Bruno it is not that easy when we are two, saying nothing about three and more. -- 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. 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/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. 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
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 8:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 6:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time, You are right and I'll shut up now :) Please don't shut up! As long as we stay polite the fun is in the conversation, ... in the detours sometimes. My main motivation for shutting up here is that I fully agree, but sometimes forget, that freedom is 1p. I do feel bad for going off-topic. I think that you and others, who contribute a lot to the main topic of this mailing list, deserve more leeway than me in going off-topic. So since you're asking, I feel comfortable with arguing a bit more. (I was being sarcastic when I said the politician misspeak. I was referring to the sort of doublespeak and euphemisms they employ. Of course they lie.) The reason why I suspect that democracy is not stable, is that it might always degrade to a Keynesian beauty contest. Modern democracy originated from enlightenment ideals, of raising human potential -- raising the average. The trouble is that, the best strategy to win elections is to pander to the average. A political movement that attempts to raise the average will lose to the Keynesian beauty contest players in the long term. So I am arguing that democracy contains in itself the evolutionary pressure that generates its own demise. I hope I'm missing something. I think what you're missing is that the voters idea of beauty is malleable and given enough money can be maninpulated. And when it takes a lot of money to win elected office the elected officers are likely to be indebted to very rich people. You seem to worry that democracy is unstable against populism, but it may also be unstable against plutocracy. I worry about both, and tend to think that they are two aspects of the same thing. Take the rise of fascism in XX century Europe. In Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal and other countries fascist republics with the superficial appearance of democracies where introduced by populism, and this power was used to maintain corporatism, which ultimately placed the means of production in the hands of the usual few rich families. So I would argue that populism and plutocracy are synergistic in corrupting democracies. Worryingly, the UE is showing signs of vulnerability to populism once again... Telmo. Brent -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time, You are right and I'll shut up now :) Thanks Telmo. it is not that easy when we are two, saying nothing about three and more. -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2014, at 13:00, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, Delay is the most deadly form of denial. OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is evidence to support it?) I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. Lenin famously said: While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. I have no reason to assume he wasn't being honest. It's just that it doesn't work. But it is perhaps incorrect to claim that early marxist philosophers desired authoritarianism. It would been unfair to say that they desired authoritarianism. But they didn't desire democracy either, and did not conceive that the implementations of their ideas could be done by the people in some incremental voting way. They missed the importance of democracy. To make it clear, I am not defending marxism. I think it has been thoroughly empirically falsified. You are quick! It has never been implemented. Ok, but Marx said that we could go from A - B using strategy C. An approximation of strategy C was attempted but point B wasn't reached. You could argue that the approximation wasn't good enough. Except perhaps in his socialist or left part of politics, where its social security can be tempered by the right will of liberty. I think it's important to make it clear precisely what was falsified. I get the impression that a lot of people that criticise or propose marxism (and other ideologies) do not fully understand what it is that they are criticising or proposing. Democracies are not perfect, and can be very sick, but it is better than anything else. I am a bit suspicious of this claim, because that seems to be the perception that every era has of its system of governance: before the barbarians, now the age of reason. We just need to fix some quirks, but we have the perfect system now... Actually we don't have a better right know, and if you look at history, that system is the best to guarantie drink and food to a majority, and to temper the natural hate that some people can have for some neighbors. The problem is that there are too many confounding variables. Is that really the outcome of democracy, or is it just the outcome of technological progress? Even tolerance might have increased mostly by way of the global means of communication, that make us more familiar with each other. And even the system - society implication might be the other way around. Could it be that feudalism, monarchy, republic, democracy are just ideas that emerge from the zeitgeist, after the fact? But I think the critics is unfair for another reason: democracies have been perverted. Indeed by monopolisation on money (based willingly or not on a large amount of black money). I agree with you that they have been (p)erverted. My question is: ~p ? That is a cancer of our social democracies. To criticize the system is for me like cells criticizing the blood cells circuit for feeding the cancer cells. Time for some nanotech maybe. Whatever the good idea is defended in politics, it is better to submit it to vote, and even still better when doing this without propaganda and unfair financial lobbying. I would say that it is even better if the idea can be implemented without coercion, so that no vote is necessary. Like ants? But they have very few choices. On the contrary, I think we have to learn to coexist with many different choices. Democracy is more like ants, it's a single direction set by the majority. how will you determine when begin the coercion? When my refusal ultimately results in the use of weapons against me. Vote is a mean to objectively diminishes the natural coercion that humans and human groups develop with respect to themselves. The growth of the Internet is a great example of such a modality. Hopefully, crypto-currencies will also make it in this fashion. Those are indeed
Re: Selecting your future branch
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:16 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: The dream thing is intriguing because I am sometimes fascinated by things my visual cortex kicks out, often, before sleep comes. Ultra intricate and non-retrievable patterns, images, songs that arise out of no where. Perhaps neurobiology has a good explanation for all this, but its hard to see it as a result of a beneficial characteristic of evolutionary advantage. I am also fascinated by this. I don't think it is necessary for an evolutionary advantage to exist. It is enough that it is neutral. It could be a byproduct of other brain mechanisms, and removing it could require a climb in complexity for which there is no evolutionary pressure. Telmo. Mitch I think John Leslie defended a multiverse, not yet a multi-dreams. The main difference is that universe is a vague undefined term, where dreams is a precise mathematical notion (once we assume that we are machines). -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 11, 2014 10:04 am Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch On 11 Jun 2014, at 14:05, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Even a more complex answer then the question Dr. Marchal. Neo-Platonism might be the thing, and I know over the years, as a pantheist of the Spinoza variety, Canadian philosopher, John Leslie, has focused on an unlimited number of minds producing an infinite number of universe. The numbers that make everything up must be embedded in Planck Cells, I suppose. Next task? Hack the universe at the root directory. That is not the next task, that is what has been already done (By Gödel, Turing, ...). Numbers that makes everything needs few K bits. And t makes no sense to embedded them in Planck cells, because those are physical objects, and thus exists only in the number's dream, which needs nothing physical to exist. The number 23 is an odd prime is a truth which does not depend on the existence of the physical universe. Computations is an arithmetical notion. They exists like prime numbers. Although the notion is slightly more relational and non intrinsic, but still quite real once you have the numbers and their operations + and *. I think John Leslie defended a multiverse, not yet a multi-dreams. The main difference is that universe is a vague undefined term, where dreams is a precise mathematical notion (once we assume that we are machines). May be you take the physical universe for something granted. I prefer not. It is what I want to explain, and I think we do have the explanation, at least a solid one which has been tested, and which gives an explanation of why there is consciousness and appearance of universes therein. Bruno The entire universe (if that exists) duplicates/differentiates. It takes times, as the differentiation is driven by local interactions, and this is slower or equal than light speed. That's physical, and is part of the number illusion, as there are no physical universe per se (if we are machine). Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 11, 2014 3:38 am Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch On 10 Jun 2014, at 17:12, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I don't think so, but thanks. The question was the idea that zombies exist in parallel universes are just zombies till our connectome arrives, to update the zombie, which the actualizes into ourselves in the universe in which we survived? The second question is does the entire universe, out to 14 billion light years gets duplicated, or does the worldline when we make a decision, or is it limited in expanse to only 1 lightyear from the Sun?? The entire universe (if that exists) duplicates/differentiates. It takes times, as the differentiation is driven by local interactions, and this is slower or equal than light speed. That's physical, and is part of the number illusion, as there are no physical universe per se (if we are machine). Bruno -Original Message- From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 9, 2014 7:25 pm Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:33:54AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: -- 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. I'm getting a blank email from you. Do you
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, Delay is the most deadly form of denial. OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is evidence to support it?) I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. Lenin famously said: While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. I have no reason to assume he wasn't being honest. It's just that it doesn't work. But it is perhaps incorrect to claim that early marxist philosophers desired authoritarianism. It would been unfair to say that they desired authoritarianism. But they didn't desire democracy either, and did not conceive that the implementations of their ideas could be done by the people in some incremental voting way. They missed the importance of democracy. To make it clear, I am not defending marxism. I think it has been thoroughly empirically falsified. I think it's important to make it clear precisely what was falsified. I get the impression that a lot of people that criticise or propose marxism (and other ideologies) do not fully understand what it is that they are criticising or proposing. Democracies are not perfect, and can be very sick, but it is better than anything else. I am a bit suspicious of this claim, because that seems to be the perception that every era has of its system of governance: before the barbarians, now the age of reason. We just need to fix some quirks, but we have the perfect system now... Whatever the good idea is defended in politics, it is better to submit it to vote, and even still better when doing this without propaganda and unfair financial lobbying. I would say that it is even better if the idea can be implemented without coercion, so that no vote is necessary. The growth of the Internet is a great example of such a modality. Hopefully, crypto-currencies will also make it in this fashion. Democracies can be improved, and sick democracies can be cured. Today we need something like anti-propaganda laws, and anti-special-interest lobbying or things like that. The more laws you create, the more loopholes are generated for hostile agents to explore. I think it is best to insist on no-coercion: you can create whatever rules you like, but I must always be free to opt-out of your society. We need more democracies, not less. Today our democracies are in peril, not much due to the financial sphere, but due to the erosion of the separation of powers, which favor groups of interest again the individual interests of the majority of individuals. It could be argued that this is the logical consequence of democracy in its current format. Representative democracy is based on the idea that we cannot trust the average person with freedom, but we can let them decide who decides. Then we believe that we can trust the minority of the elected elite with all the power and all the freedom, and we are surprised when they also act in selfish ways... Democracy in its current format is still a system of dominance. It is a sophisticated one, in that the serfs have plausible deniability of being serfs. A symptom of this is when you keep reading opinions using the social we. We have to have a debate about state surveillance. Against all evidence, people insist on believing that there is a we that can decide to stop such things after a debate. The contrast of Obama's first campaign with his actions as President made this painfully obvious to some of us, but not the majority of us. I don't believe in referenda, except for rare big decisions. Too much referenda is not democratic. You can influence people too much easily, by TV or other media, and it is better to vote for the wrong idea, and then to vote perhaps on some other idea after a serious long period to better evaluate if the idea was not working or not. But there is not option to vote on ideas at all. I cannot pick and chose. I cannot say that I am for gays adopting and against gun control. This is not on the menu. Telmo. Bruno Telmo. -- You received this message
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, Delay is the most deadly form of denial. OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is evidence to support it?) I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. Lenin famously said: While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. I have no reason to assume he wasn't being honest. It's just that it doesn't work. But it is perhaps incorrect to claim that early marxist philosophers desired authoritarianism. Telmo. -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 22:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, Delay is the most deadly form of denial. OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is evidence to support it?) I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. And Marx would have know that how, exactly? The claim is that Marx and Engels used the withering away concept as a sop because Marx knew people would grow weary of state oppression (see quote above). That is the claim I am asking for evidence for. Sorry Liz, I misread. I agree with you, I don't think there is any evidence that Marx's work was written in bad faith. -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:11 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't suggest that our rugged collective ancestors were happier than we, less spoiled yes, but happier no. Of course, this is pure speculation. Who knows? There is some empirical evidence that depression is on the rise, but this could be for a number or reasons. Have any of you folks visited the US? It is, for whatever its worth is a nation state of about 320 million inhabitants. I was lucky enough to be able to visit it a number of times. I have been to 9 states so far, spanning the east and west coast, the south and middle america. I loved it every single time and hope to go more times -- although I am less inclined theses days because the TSA freaks me out. Overall the USA felt very welcoming. People are nicer to strangers than in Europe. I am also an admirer of parts of USA history, including its constitutional principles. I think the declaration of independence is a beautiful document and a turing point in world history. It states that life is an unalienable right, that the government exists to protect. Dopamine is not justice, Sure. Justice is a superstition. nor, is it respect for one's fellow primates, but do you view it as a place where the streets run red with blood? No, as per above. What communities in the US are the most violent? The police and the military. I am not trying to dissuade you folks of your views, but am fascinated by the notion, that, because we are easier on criminals, life is thus, better, and so are we, as societies. The idea that violence leads to more violence doesn't seem so far-fetched to me. But hey... In the 1990's the US experienced a domestic terrorist strike in Oklahoma, City in 1995. In 1993, the Muslim Brotherhood tried the same thing, but failed, in 1993 at the Twin Towers in NYC. Timothy MacVeigh was executed, and I see that as the right revenge for Breivik. MacVeigh killed 164 people. No dopamine is necessary, and despite his sentencing, how long will Breivik remain in jail? There is a lot to dislike about Europe, but one thing can be said for us: we don't base our justice system on revenge anymore. The police forces are mostly passive, they react to complains instead of looking for people to punish. The goal of the judicial system is to lower crime rates, not to provide revenge. I feel safer in such a system, and it appears to work quite well. Telmo. You could argue that we are unlucky to be living in 2014, and that our hunter-gatherer ancestors lead happier and more fulfilling lives. This might well be the case, because they were leading lives in the environment that they were evolved to live in. On the other hand, we have technology and reason on our side. We can create dopamine hits artificially to relieve people in need, without causing further violence. The only thing preventing us are superstitions inherited from a distant past. In 2011, Anders Breivik sought to punish race-traitors, and the Socialist Party summer camp, Telmo. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 7:05 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:03 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: You may be correct indeed, but if being part of the civilized world protects violent, predatory, criminals, including, (drumroll) Islamists and Putin, the I suppose I will demur from being civilized. Most capital crimes, even in Texas, are crimes of passion. I don't see it (no death penalty) as being civilized, I view it as an excuse to be uncaring toward the victim's family. The desire for vengeance is hard-wired in our brains. We get a good dopamine hit from it, which might relief the suffering of people who are grieving. Now, in 2014, we can recognise this mechanism for what it is. It was probably useful for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, but it is maladaptive in a globalised world with 7 billion people and nuclear weapons. You could argue that we are unlucky to be living in 2014, and that our hunter-gatherer ancestors lead happier and more fulfilling lives. This might well be the case, because they were leading lives in the environment that they were evolved to live in. On the other hand, we have technology and reason on our side. We can create dopamine hits artificially to relieve people in need, without causing further violence. The only thing preventing us are superstitions inherited from a distant past. Telmo. The USA are alone in this. It's not some uncertain utopia, it has been fully achieved in most of the civilised world. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 3, 2014 6:57 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back
Re: Gödel’s Loophole
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that no system of govt is going to work all the time, but the details are a bit vague now. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? No, but I would be interested. It occurs to me that this could be concluded from the no free lunch theorem, if one concedes that governance is a search problem (finding the set of regulations that maximise some utility function). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_theorem I mean in this particular case, obviously. In general I'm a model of clarity (insert eye-rolling emoticon here). On 6 June 2014 08:47, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Brent: you venture into closing in on *'democracy*': Indeed it is impossible, no system can involve EVERYBODY's interest/taste/choice/whatever into ONE system (*Cratos* of the *entire* *Demos*?) so we think of a watered-down variant: a MAJORITY rule which implies the suppression of a MINORITY (if the figures are right - otherwise it goes for the rule of a minority). Example: how many votes did Morsi get for his 'democratic' election from the 35 millon srong Egyptian voter population? Is it a numbers' game indeed? John M On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/4/2014 3:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper formulas and automatic mechanisms. without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a constitutional system can derive to anything bad. I mostly agree. In fact, I would argue that the hypothetical effectiveness of the constitution as a vaccine against tyranny has already been empirically falsified in the USA. The effectiveness, as the effectiveness of laws in general, has always depended on the recognition and acceptance by the populace. You, and Godel and other critics, represent a corrosive influence on that acceptance. As people who object to one or another government action (e.g. Clive Bundy, Citizens United, EPA regulations) invoke the Constitution as prohibiting that action and the government as violating the Constitution more and more political activists are encouraged to claim the government is illegitimate. If enough people *think* the government is illegimate, however meritless and diverse their claims may be, then in effect it does become illegitimate and society devolves toward rule by power: oligarchy or police state. The recognition and acceptance by the populace implies that there is the option of non-recognition and rejection. So a government becomes legitimate because the majority of the people choose the former. I think we can agree on this. But then you say that the people who choose non-recognition and rejection are a corrosive influence that leads to oligarchies or police states. So there was no choice to begin with, except for a choice between what you consider ethical or unethical behaviour. This is circular: the government is ethical because it is legitimised by a choice of the majority, and you should choose to accept the government because not doing so harms the government, which is ethical because... etc. It's not circular, it's democracy. If you convince a majority that the government is wrong then it ethical to overthrow it. Brent -- 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
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:50 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I am not attacking the EU, but I am trying to see if your impressions of the US are based on experience or news. Since it is based on experience, were there any neighborhoods you would have been intimidated to visit, or, since, I am prompting you, as a non-US citizen, and speaking to the US crime rate-regarding executions, a part of a city where it's best to be cautious? I was warned against certain areas and I went there anyway. They looked more grimy, but never had a problem. I fondly remember a poor crack addict who wanted two things from me: cigarettes and to tell me about Jesus. I agreed with both and everything was fine. My response is really for your post before this one, and your belief that (apparently) crime is prevalent everywhere in the US, because we have the death penalty. I never claimed this, perhaps you are confusing me with another poster. I oppose the death penalty on principle: I believe it is wrong to kill other human beings, except when absolutely necessary for self-defence. I believe that violence generates more violence, but I never made any claims about the crime rate in the USA. It seems that this was not your experience in real life, which would contradict, perhaps, your world view. On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:11 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't suggest that our rugged collective ancestors were happier than we, less spoiled yes, but happier no. Of course, this is pure speculation. Who knows? There is some empirical evidence that depression is on the rise, but this could be for a number or reasons. Have any of you folks visited the US? It is, for whatever its worth is a nation state of about 320 million inhabitants. I was lucky enough to be able to visit it a number of times. I have been to 9 states so far, spanning the east and west coast, the south and middle america. I loved it every single time and hope to go more times -- although I am less inclined theses days because the TSA freaks me out. Overall the USA felt very welcoming. People are nicer to strangers than in Europe. I am also an admirer of parts of USA history, including its constitutional principles. I think the declaration of independence is a beautiful document and a turing point in world history. It states that life is an unalienable right, that the government exists to protect. Dopamine is not justice, Sure. Justice is a superstition. nor, is it respect for one's fellow primates, but do you view it as a place where the streets run red with blood? No, as per above. What communities in the US are the most violent? The police and the military. I am not trying to dissuade you folks of your views, but am fascinated by the notion, that, because we are easier on criminals, life is thus, better, and so are we, as societies. The idea that violence leads to more violence doesn't seem so far-fetched to me. But hey... In the 1990's the US experienced a domestic terrorist strike in Oklahoma, City in 1995. In 1993, the Muslim Brotherhood tried the same thing, but failed, in 1993 at the Twin Towers in NYC. Timothy MacVeigh was executed, and I see that as the right revenge for Breivik. MacVeigh killed 164 people. No dopamine is necessary, and despite his sentencing, how long will Breivik remain in jail? There is a lot to dislike about Europe, but one thing can be said for us: we don't base our justice system on revenge anymore. The police forces are mostly passive, they react to complains instead of looking for people to punish. The goal of the judicial system is to lower crime rates, not to provide revenge. I feel safer in such a system, and it appears to work quite well. Telmo. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Jun 6, 2014 7:23 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:11 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't suggest that our rugged collective ancestors were happier than we, less spoiled yes, but happier no. Of course, this is pure speculation. Who knows? There is some empirical evidence that depression is on the rise, but this could be for a number or reasons. Have any of you folks visited the US? It is, for whatever its worth is a nation state of about 320 million inhabitants. I was lucky enough to be able to visit it a number of times. I have been to 9 states so far, spanning the east and west coast, the south and middle america. I loved it every single time and hope to go more times -- although I am less inclined theses days because the TSA freaks me out. Overall the USA felt very welcoming. People are nicer to strangers than in Europe. I am also an admirer of parts
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Jun 2014, at 13:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: Dopamine is not justice, Sure. Justice is a superstition. Then truth, beauty, and all protagorean virtues becomes superstition. I might be out of context, but I am not sure what you mean by justice is a superstition. It might be an ideal, but like we can know very well what is pleasant and what is non pleasant, we can in situation understand what is just and what is non just, even if a large part of it is first person and hard to delimited with words. To believe in a guy bringing justice can be a superstition though. But most of our laws are good, if they were applied and not jeopardized by multinationals, corporatism and special interest. The protagorean virtue can still be taught by examples (myths, legends, movies, arts, ...) and are open to improvement or to a generalization of harm reduction. 100%-just might be a superstition. I meant in the context of punishment and retribution. I don't believe that there is some magical property of justice that is increased by causing harm to someone, making punishment or retribution intrinsically good actions. So, to be more precise. Suppose you write a book and someone steals it and publishes it under their name. They make a lot of money and gain recognition by stealing from you. It is good that the person is caught, made to give you the money and that you receive the due recognition for your own work. Maybe the person should be sent to jail, to dissuade this type of behaviour. I don't question any of this. But people then refer to justice as things like: the person who stole your book should suffer in jail, or be publicly flogged or suffer in some way. And this suffering restores justice. This is the part I think is superstition. A thought experiment. Let's imagine that it turns out that making murder legal actually minimises the number of murders. There are still 3 or 4, but any penalty raises it to the hundreds. The sort of justice superstition that I allude to would mandate that there should be a penalty, because having the 3 or 4 murderers unpunished is unacceptable. A less extreme version of this happens with the Swedish experiment with more comfortable jails. They are noticing a decrease in criminality, but most of the world cannot accept such an idea because they are not comfortable with less retribution, even at the expense of more actual crimes. Telmo. Bruno 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/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: Pluto bounces back!
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it's when people post directly via googlegroups and not via their email client ? That would be my bet too. I get spudboy100 via Everything List on gmail, which probably has privileged information because it's also on Google. 2014-06-05 19:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: Why do these posts appear with the From line EveryThing instead of with the senders name? Brent On 6/5/2014 10:04 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Yes indeed, however because there is no parental physical violence permitted against the guilty, so a predatory pedophile, because we are not savages, because its just the same as execution if the accused is innocent, because we are a nation of laws, not men, simply jails the pedo, and the child, perhaps murdered goes un-avenged. This is my take. Death penalty does not make sense. I can understand personal individual revenge, and could acquit a parent killing the one who has been violent with his/her children, but I can't swallow the idea that a state coldly kill someone. This is close to nonsense and barbary. It does not deter people to kill, on the contrary it makes killing more banal or normal. It can even motivate a type of serial killing where the serial killer phantasms on his own death. Then it kills innocent people in a regular way. Countries with death penalty have usually more homicides than the others. Well, that's my opinion. Bruno -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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: Gödel’s Loophole
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper formulas and automatic mechanisms. without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a constitutional system can derive to anything bad. I mostly agree. In fact, I would argue that the hypothetical effectiveness of the constitution as a vaccine against tyranny has already been empirically falsified in the USA. The effectiveness, as the effectiveness of laws in general, has always depended on the recognition and acceptance by the populace. You, and Godel and other critics, represent a corrosive influence on that acceptance. As people who object to one or another government action (e.g. Clive Bundy, Citizens United, EPA regulations) invoke the Constitution as prohibiting that action and the government as violating the Constitution more and more political activists are encouraged to claim the government is illegitimate. If enough people *think* the government is illegimate, however meritless and diverse their claims may be, then in effect it does become illegitimate and society devolves toward rule by power: oligarchy or police state. The recognition and acceptance by the populace implies that there is the option of non-recognition and rejection. So a government becomes legitimate because the majority of the people choose the former. I think we can agree on this. But then you say that the people who choose non-recognition and rejection are a corrosive influence that leads to oligarchies or police states. So there was no choice to begin with, except for a choice between what you consider ethical or unethical behaviour. This is circular: the government is ethical because it is legitimised by a choice of the majority, and you should choose to accept the government because not doing so harms the government, which is ethical because... etc. Telmo. Brent -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:03 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: You may be correct indeed, but if being part of the civilized world protects violent, predatory, criminals, including, (drumroll) Islamists and Putin, the I suppose I will demur from being civilized. Most capital crimes, even in Texas, are crimes of passion. I don't see it (no death penalty) as being civilized, I view it as an excuse to be uncaring toward the victim's family. The desire for vengeance is hard-wired in our brains. We get a good dopamine hit from it, which might relief the suffering of people who are grieving. Now, in 2014, we can recognise this mechanism for what it is. It was probably useful for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, but it is maladaptive in a globalised world with 7 billion people and nuclear weapons. You could argue that we are unlucky to be living in 2014, and that our hunter-gatherer ancestors lead happier and more fulfilling lives. This might well be the case, because they were leading lives in the environment that they were evolved to live in. On the other hand, we have technology and reason on our side. We can create dopamine hits artificially to relieve people in need, without causing further violence. The only thing preventing us are superstitions inherited from a distant past. Telmo. The USA are alone in this. It's not some uncertain utopia, it has been fully achieved in most of the civilised world. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 3, 2014 6:57 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:47 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: No death penalties. I am not sure I agree, but if this is the goal, then things need to be done really differently. Hum? Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Capital_punishment.PNG The USA are alone in this. It's not some uncertain utopia, it has been fully achieved in most of the civilised world. Telmo. I am not sure what you mean by to seek my goal. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 2, 2014 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 3 June 2014 10:28, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: To seek your goal I am guessing elements of society, law, and technology, must improve. I am not sure what you mean by to seek my goal. For many, nothing is broken, or they have an interest in things continuing as they are. We'd have to get into problem soving mode to do all that. The world does not seem to be in a problem solving mood. This is of course true, business as usual is nideed in the process of destroying the world. Not sure what it has to do with the previous topic but FWIW I agree. -- 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. -- 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
Re: Gödel’s Loophole
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 June 2014 22:43, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper formulas and automatic mechanisms. without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a constitutional system can derive to anything bad. I mostly agree. In fact, I would argue that the hypothetical effectiveness of the constitution as a vaccine against tyranny has already been empirically falsified in the USA. The effectiveness, as the effectiveness of laws in general, has always depended on the recognition and acceptance by the populace. You, and Godel and other critics, represent a corrosive influence on that acceptance. As people who object to one or another government action (e.g. Clive Bundy, Citizens United, EPA regulations) invoke the Constitution as prohibiting that action and the government as violating the Constitution more and more political activists are encouraged to claim the government is illegitimate. If enough people *think* the government is illegimate, however meritless and diverse their claims may be, then in effect it does become illegitimate and society devolves toward rule by power: oligarchy or police state. The recognition and acceptance by the populace implies that there is the option of non-recognition and rejection. So a government becomes legitimate because the majority of the people choose the former. I think we can agree on this. But then you say that the people who choose non-recognition and rejection are a corrosive influence that leads to oligarchies or police states. So there was no choice to begin with, except for a choice between what you consider ethical or unethical behaviour. This is circular: the government is ethical because it is legitimised by a choice of the majority, and you should choose to accept the government because not doing so harms the government, which is ethical because... etc. It isn't *just *circular - if it had been adhered to, America would still be under British rule. I am assuming that Brent believes the American revolution to have been unethical, otherwise his statements are logically inconsistent. -- 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.
Gödel’s Loophole
The famous Gödel Loophole on the US constitution. Seems to be the usual logician trick: apply a statement to itself :) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2010183 Best, Telmo. -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:47 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: No death penalties. I am not sure I agree, but if this is the goal, then things need to be done really differently. Hum? Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Capital_punishment.PNG The USA are alone in this. It's not some uncertain utopia, it has been fully achieved in most of the civilised world. Telmo. I am not sure what you mean by to seek my goal. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 2, 2014 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 3 June 2014 10:28, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: To seek your goal I am guessing elements of society, law, and technology, must improve. I am not sure what you mean by to seek my goal. For many, nothing is broken, or they have an interest in things continuing as they are. We'd have to get into problem soving mode to do all that. The world does not seem to be in a problem solving mood. This is of course true, business as usual is nideed in the process of destroying the world. Not sure what it has to do with the previous topic but FWIW I agree. -- 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: numenta
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jun 2014, at 19:37, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: http://numenta.org/ An organization formed by Jeff Hawkins (inventor of the Palm Pilot) to study artificial intelligence. Hawkins idea is that lower level modules in the brain continually try to predict what signals they will next receive; and it is only when the predictions fail that signals are passed up to higher (more interconnected) modules, and it is at the highest level they become conscious thoughts. I read his book On Intelligence a few years ago and recommend it. It is quite interesting and has some nice ideas on how to implement an AGI. It conveys a lot of information on neuroscience with a strong focus on the visual cortex. He even derives a machine learning model from his ideas, and it appears to have practical applications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_temporal_memory On the other hand, the excitement appears to have fizzled out after some initial hype, but maybe I'm just unaware of further progress. Will look into it. Pro: I really appreciate his it's time for computer science to tackle the brain attitude, focused on actually building things; Con: He dismisses the mind-body problem by essentially claiming that consciousness doesn't even exist. It annoys me, but I can tolerate it because he delivers interesting ideas and models on the practical side of things. Not only I am unable to go to that page, but my browser get really mad after I tried. Actually, I have lost my connection with the net. I guess my OS is too old. Strange, it's a regular wikipedia page. Maybe you can try the mobile version, which is lighter: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_temporal_memory But from what you say, we might agree on this. That theory is close to the idea that consciousness is called for when automated part of the brain don't fit with the situation. We can open everyday our door without conscious thinking, but if the key appears to not function well, we get conscious of the situation. Right, but it is presented simply as a theory of intelligence. One of the things he mentions in the book, that I really like, is the possibility that the neocortex uses very long axons that go deep into the brain and back in a loop as a device to delay signals. The hypothesis is that it allows the mapping of temporal phenomena into a simpler atemporal pattern-matching problem. Then, if he claims that consciousness does not exist, well, we have a problem. Agreed. Perhaps the problem is not so serious because his theories do not depend on this assertion. It's more of a side remark, he seems to be annoyed by the consciousness issue and just avoids it. It's fair enough, I think. I don't have the book with me so I can't check. I will check in the summer if nobody else comes forward. Telmo. Bruno Best, Telmo. Brent -- 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. 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/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: Gödel’s Loophole
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. No, it does not require a Godelian mind neither a average logician one to understand it: To amend the constitution there is a procedure in that constitution. If this procedure is followed, it is possible to change this article to this other: every morning that our leader (or the long term emergence UN commission for saving planet Earth) wake up in the morning, the current constitution is amended by what he says that morning That may be unrealistic there may be not enough votes to change it, but it can be the final outcome of gradual changes. For example, it is possible to subsidize the mass media in order to gain influence and more votes etc etc.so that the next election etc etc That is because a constitutional system can not work without an spirit.. That is a unwritten part whose visible part is the preamble, where the values and loyalties and ideas that inspire the constitution are expressed. But they can not be enforced by constitutional mechanism because they are personal values: how people must feel what people should like and what each one should be loyal to. That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper formulas and automatic mechanisms. without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a constitutional system can derive to anything bad. I mostly agree. In fact, I would argue that the hypothetical effectiveness of the constitution as a vaccine against tyranny has already been empirically falsified in the USA. That is the reason behind this famous statement: The liberal secular state lives on premises that it cannot itself guarantee That was enunciated by E.-W. Böckenförde Ok, but why liberal secular? Is this not true of all states? Telmo. 2014-06-03 11:32 GMT+02:00, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: The famous Gödel Loophole on the US constitution. Seems to be the usual logician trick: apply a statement to itself :) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2010183 Best, Telmo. -- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: numenta
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: http://numenta.org/ An organization formed by Jeff Hawkins (inventor of the Palm Pilot) to study artificial intelligence. Hawkins idea is that lower level modules in the brain continually try to predict what signals they will next receive; and it is only when the predictions fail that signals are passed up to higher (more interconnected) modules, and it is at the highest level they become conscious thoughts. I read his book On Intelligence a few years ago and recommend it. It is quite interesting and has some nice ideas on how to implement an AGI. It conveys a lot of information on neuroscience with a strong focus on the visual cortex. He even derives a machine learning model from his ideas, and it appears to have practical applications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_temporal_memory On the other hand, the excitement appears to have fizzled out after some initial hype, but maybe I'm just unaware of further progress. Will look into it. Pro: I really appreciate his it's time for computer science to tackle the brain attitude, focused on actually building things; Con: He dismisses the mind-body problem by essentially claiming that consciousness doesn't even exist. It annoys me, but I can tolerate it because he delivers interesting ideas and models on the practical side of things. Best, Telmo. Brent -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment. Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school. The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers (not rape victim); for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who give false witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any other case. Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which is advised, not beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it means beating. I disagree. Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of their bosoms with scarf; head covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional in almost all religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head covered. Muslims did not make those statues. Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men and women, used to wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures. The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when going out, if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise? Homosexuality is considered a crime. Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16 contains guidance for how to deal with this crime. Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment. Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe it is implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very low. However, I have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be implemented in an ideal Islamic welfare society where excuses / rationale for theft are almost non-existent, and thereby stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any need for survival. So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. However, on this forum, I only invite you all to benefit from the factual accuracy of the Quran in your efforts to understand the world of science. I am not asking anyone to become a Muslim. Faith, we believe, is God's gift to the willing heart. You're avoiding the point. Your specific claim was that the Quran teachings are ethical, and that perceptions to the contrary stem from media disinformation. So I submitted to you a list of things that make me conclude that the Quran teachings are unethical. Very honestly, my previous beliefs were reinforced. We have unreconcilable views on ethics. Telmo. Samiya Telmo. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we start following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out. Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the message itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, Jews, or any other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or hold any leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, intentions and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us when we depart from this life. Samiya On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting to paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical. Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 29-May-2014, at 7:56 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment. Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school. The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers (not rape victim); for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who give false witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any other case. Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which is advised, not beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it means beating. I disagree. Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of their bosoms with scarf; head covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional in almost all religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head covered. Muslims did not make those statues. Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men and women, used to wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures. The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when going out, if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise? Homosexuality is considered a crime. Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16 contains guidance for how to deal with this crime. Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment. Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe it is implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very low. However, I have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be implemented in an ideal Islamic welfare society where excuses / rationale for theft are almost non-existent, and thereby stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any need for survival. So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. However, on this forum, I only invite you all to benefit from the factual accuracy of the Quran in your efforts to understand the world of science. I am not asking anyone to become a Muslim. Faith, we believe, is God's gift to the willing heart. You're avoiding the point. Your specific claim was that the Quran teachings are ethical, and that perceptions to the contrary stem from media disinformation. So I submitted to you a list of things that make me conclude that the Quran teachings are unethical. Very honestly, my previous beliefs were reinforced. We have unreconcilable views on ethics. Telmo. Yes, our views are different. We think it unethical to cheat on our spouse, I agree that it is unethical to lie or break agreements, but I place more importance on the abuse of force against other people. Society administering humiliating physical punishments for something that happened within a private agreement between adults is a worse crime. we think it's wrong to steal, I agree, but again, depriving someone of a part of their bodies is a much much much worse crime than stealing. we think it's perfectly ethical for a woman to try and protect herself, No you don't. You prohibit them from taking basic steps towards self-sufficiency, so you expose them to the enormous risk of lifelong dependency on a small number of close relatives. and so on. You object to the punishment, we object to the crime. It is deeper than that, unfortunately. Your punishments go against what I consider the fundamental ethical principles and your crimes in include things that I see either as ethically neutral (sexual orientation) or fundamental human freedoms (speech, artistic expression, personal beliefs). We believe the Quran has been revealed
Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, or the most likely solution. Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to us - for example, we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't interbreed with them. Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were talking about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding. So functional similarity might be enough, as alluded in sheep are nervous. :) Well if you're just talking about something you can put your dick in (or an alien can put their proboscis in), that's a (ahem) broad range of items, depending on your tastes (See A melon for ecstasy and The unrepentant necrophile for some suggestions for things one can have sex with in this sense, should one be so inclined). Interesting stuff. When I was a teenager, me and some friends would pretend that we ran a necrophilia fanzine. We would have conversations about it, just to disturb people in hearing range. The title of this fictitious publication was Formaldehyde. Life can get excruciatingly boring in small towns... However your original reply (in blue above) certainly *appeared* to be talking about interbreeding. (Or did you mean humanoid forms are the only viable solution for fetishists who happen to get their kicks from anally probing members of other species ?) Ok, I wasn't so clear. My speculation was somewhere in the middle: that species can exist that may not necessarily interbreed but are sufficiently similar to be sexually attractive to each other -- or, more precisely, to elements of each other's species with common sexual tastes. So the reason why I find this sort of speculation interesting is that we assume a hypothetical diversity in the tree of possible organisms of human-level intelligence or above. It is compelling to assume high diversity, given the combinatorial explosion of possibilities afforded by DNA encoding and the biological diversity we can observe on earth. But we don't really know. A counter-hypothesis is that, as complexity increases, the space of viable solutions gets smaller. In an extreme case, it could be that human-level intelligence always requires humanoids. Even taking our friends the orangutans and bonobos. Suppose they keep evolving until they reach human-level intelligence. They are quite close now. Maybe they will lose their fur and develop more and more human-like features until they become sexually attractive to regular humans. I am not saying that this is the case, or even that I have any evidence for it. What I do know, from experimenting with evolutionary computation, is that we should be suspicious of our intuitions when it comes to such highly complex systems. Best, Telmo. But anyway OK, aliens *may* want to have sex with humans, just as a human *may* want to have sex with orangutans - but generally they won't, because sexual attraction is fairly fine tuned, both by evolution and social norms (indeed it's so fine tuned that species that could in theory interbreed often don't) - and, at least in my experience, most humans don't even want to have sex with most other humans . never mind fancying members of a different species who will almost certainly give out all the wrong visual, behavioural, and chemical cues. -- 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
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school. Homosexuality is considered a crime. Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment. So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? Telmo. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we start following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out. Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the message itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, Jews, or any other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or hold any leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, intentions and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us when we depart from this life. Samiya On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting to paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical. Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself, but the all the humbleness in the world, devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the Imams, and Muftis, instruct otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and Bukhari are all God given and have predictions that only God would know, it does no good if the earth gets drowned in blood by seekers of paradise. Unhelpful indeed. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:32 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! Here's page 1307 - I would prefer it if you quoted whatever it is you're referring to rather than giving a link to a (rather difficult to access) online book, because it doesn't mean much to me... page1307.png As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it certainly isn't a very succinct summary. On 28 May 2014 16:19, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume it also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307 ] Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration: http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves? On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system. [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me. [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true, and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the Wise. Samiya http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter -- You received this
Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:12:56AM +1200, LizR wrote: On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, or the most likely solution. Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to us - for example, we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't interbreed with them. It is however fascinating that we're so fascinated by this idea. From I married a monster from outer space via Mr Spock to Mars needs women!. I agree with Liz. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no feeling for just how ginormous the number 4^1 billion is. That is the size of the solution space using Terrestrial DNA (4 base pairs, around a billion base pairs makes up human DNA). For comparison, the number of protons in the visible universe is a mere 4^132 or so. Sure, but the representation is very brittle. How many of those 4^1 billion leads to viable organisms? This is why, when exposed to radiation, we get cancer instead of super-powers... Then, the space of solutions may be further restricted by the evolutionary process itself. Just because some solution is valid, that doesn't mean that it is likely that it can be discovered through iterative improvement. Best, Telmo. 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, or the most likely solution. Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to us - for example, we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't interbreed with them. Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were talking about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding. So functional similarity might be enough, as alluded in sheep are nervous. :) It is however fascinating that we're so fascinated by this idea. From I married a monster from outer space via Mr Spock to Mars needs women!. -- 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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, or the most likely solution. Odd that this is such a persistent meme, though. Someone (James Tiptree?) wrote an SF short story satirising this trope in the 70s I think. -- 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 end to end structure associated wit Falsification
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:18 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/21/2014 3:44 PM, LizR wrote: Yes, I was indeed thinking of the superhero Bicycle Repair Man when I wrote that. However I'm not so keen on deifying the Wright brothers when they were just two in a long line of people in many countries who gradually developed powered flight. They did make a significant improvement, of course, but there were plenty of others who helped pave the way to modern aeroplanes (including one somewhat dubious claim from New Zealand) Interestingly in the context of this thread, one of the Wright brother's main contributions was their systematic (dare I say scientific) approach using a wind tunnel to study air foils. It is perhaps good to make a distinction between science: the method and science: the game. Although honest scientists will attempt to focus on the former and avoid the pitfalls of the latter, honest scientists are human beings with human emotions and bills to pay. So the end results is always some combination of the two. I think this is unavoidable, but good to be aware of, especially in times when the needle moves to much to the game side. Science: the method is all about generating hypothesis and testing them. Generating hypothesis is a creative process, and I don't think that academia was ever a particularly good environment for creativity. It's relationship to it is a bit bipolar: it eventually glorifies the successful creative thinkers, but it fights creativity every step of the way until then. Part of this behaviour is for good reasons, but part is pathological, I would say. This is also true of the relationship between academia and art, if you look at how the major artistic movements of the XX century were received at first. So it's not so surprising that academia is side-stepped to achieve invention, which doesn't mean at all that science: the method is thrown out of the window. In fact, academia tries very hard to create a monopoly on science but this is perverse. Anyone can apply the scientific method. It doesn't care about formal qualifications, institutions, or even scientific journals or peer-review. It will wield its results regardless -- and that is beautiful in my view. A bit like the hacker's ethos in the 80s that lead to a lot of the permission-free innovation in computer systems that we enjoy today. Brent -- 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 end to end structure associated wit Falsification
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:18 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/21/2014 3:44 PM, LizR wrote: Yes, I was indeed thinking of the superhero Bicycle Repair Man when I wrote that. However I'm not so keen on deifying the Wright brothers when they were just two in a long line of people in many countries who gradually developed powered flight. They did make a significant improvement, of course, but there were plenty of others who helped pave the way to modern aeroplanes (including one somewhat dubious claim from New Zealand) Interestingly in the context of this thread, one of the Wright brother's main contributions was their systematic (dare I say scientific) approach using a wind tunnel to study air foils. It is perhaps good to make a distinction between science: the method and science: the game. Although honest scientists will attempt to focus on the former and avoid the pitfalls of the latter, honest scientists are human beings with human emotions and bills to pay. So the end results is always some combination of the two. I think this is unavoidable, but good to be aware of, especially in times when the needle moves to much to the game side. Science: the method is all about generating hypothesis and testing them. Generating hypothesis is a creative process, and I don't think that academia was ever a particularly good environment for creativity. It's relationship to it is a bit bipolar: it eventually glorifies the successful creative thinkers, but it fights creativity every step of the way until then. Part of this behaviour is for good reasons, but part is pathological, I would say. This is also true of the relationship between academia and art, if you look at how the major artistic movements of the XX century were received at first. So it's not so surprising that academia is side-stepped to achieve invention, which doesn't mean at all that science: the method is thrown out of the window. In fact, academia tries very hard to create a monopoly on science but this is perverse. Anyone can apply the scientific method. It doesn't care about formal qualifications, institutions, or even scientific journals or peer-review. It will wield its results regardless -- and that is beautiful in my view. A bit like the hacker's ethos in the 80s that lead to a lot of the permission-free innovation in computer systems that we enjoy today. Coincidently, this just showed up on my facebook wall: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761 It's an exaggeration, but I think it illustrates the science as method / science as game distinction. Telmo. Brent -- 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 end to end structure associated wit Falsification
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 May 2014, at 16:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:18 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/21/2014 3:44 PM, LizR wrote: Yes, I was indeed thinking of the superhero Bicycle Repair Man when I wrote that. However I'm not so keen on deifying the Wright brothers when they were just two in a long line of people in many countries who gradually developed powered flight. They did make a significant improvement, of course, but there were plenty of others who helped pave the way to modern aeroplanes (including one somewhat dubious claim from New Zealand) Interestingly in the context of this thread, one of the Wright brother's main contributions was their systematic (dare I say scientific) approach using a wind tunnel to study air foils. It is perhaps good to make a distinction between science: the method and science: the game. Although honest scientists will attempt to focus on the former and avoid the pitfalls of the latter, honest scientists are human beings with human emotions and bills to pay. So the end results is always some combination of the two. I think this is unavoidable, but good to be aware of, especially in times when the needle moves to much to the game side. Science: the method is all about generating hypothesis and testing them. Generating hypothesis is a creative process, and I don't think that academia was ever a particularly good environment for creativity. It's relationship to it is a bit bipolar: it eventually glorifies the successful creative thinkers, but it fights creativity every step of the way until then. Part of this behaviour is for good reasons, but part is pathological, I would say. This is also true of the relationship between academia and art, if you look at how the major artistic movements of the XX century were received at first. So it's not so surprising that academia is side-stepped to achieve invention, which doesn't mean at all that science: the method is thrown out of the window. In fact, academia tries very hard to create a monopoly on science but this is perverse. Anyone can apply the scientific method. It doesn't care about formal qualifications, institutions, or even scientific journals or peer-review. It will wield its results regardless -- and that is beautiful in my view. A bit like the hacker's ethos in the 80s that lead to a lot of the permission-free innovation in computer systems that we enjoy today. Coincidently, this just showed up on my facebook wall: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761 It's an exaggeration, but I think it illustrates the science as method / science as game distinction. Of course the the scientific method in that diagram if what Deutch and myself criticize. It uses a fuzzy establish which is already on the slope for making science into pseudo-religion. Ok, but we could interpret establish as a recommendation for betting on something. For engineering purposes, for example. The actual method is fun, but the idea that theory is not hypothesis witness again a misunderstanding of what science can possibly (seen by Plato in the Theaetetus and Parmenides). I tend to assume that a theory is a hypothesis that yielded at least one valid prediction and survived falsification so far. Now with a comp, we have an arithmetical view of what the machine's science can be and its difference with machine's knowledge, observation and sensation. We have a bit the choice to start by observing a natural phenomenon or start by introspecting oneself, but we have to observe the out-reality to refute the theory (up to dream and emulation, cela va sans dire). I suspect this is above the level of sophistication of the joke :) They use the term natural phenomena, which already causes me to cringe a bit, for reasons already discussed. a+ Telmo. Bruno Telmo. Brent -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
Re: The end to end structure associated wit Falsification
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/22/2014 4:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Science: the method is all about generating hypothesis and testing them. Generating hypothesis is a creative process, and I don't think that academia was ever a particularly good environment for creativity. It's relationship to it is a bit bipolar: it eventually glorifies the successful creative thinkers, but it fights creativity every step of the way until then. Part of this behaviour is for good reasons, but part is pathological, I would say. Some people call it fighting creativity every step of the way, some people call it testing the theory. Sure, this is why I said sometimes for good reason. The current thread about Tronnies is a good example. It is also a great example of actual peer-review being done. People who submit to scientific journals are painfully aware that you don't get feed back of this quality so often. If your idea is too out there, many reviewers won't even go to the trouble of properly understanding what you are saying. Some funny blasts from the past, to illustrate what I'm referring to: http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html Of course I'm not saying that all scientists are like this or that all academia is rotten. I'm just saying that it is a common problem, it seems to be getting worse and it should be acknowledged. Ross apparently doesn't have that creative-stifiling academica training. But as a result he isn't aware of all the tests that current theories have passed and why his theory, creative though it may be, is going to generally be ignored unless he shows it can pass all those tests too AND add something. Physics is perhaps the field that benefits the most from traditional academic constraints. It is a highly self-contained field, where the low-hanging fruit has been picked and progress depends on mega-projects like the hadron collider. I think. An interesting counter-example is Polly Matzinger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Matzinger She had the intuition for the Danger Model of the immune system while working as a waitress at a pub and overhearing discussion that immunologists from the nearby University frequented. One of them, Professor Robert Schwab liked her ideas and invited her to do a PhD with him. So this appears to be a combination of raw talent and a mind untainted by pre-conceptions in the field, leading to a completely out of the box idea. Best, Telmo. Brent -- 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 end to end structure associated wit Falsification
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-05-21 11:08 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 21 May 2014 20:50, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: All these fanfarres and grandiloquent terms that sanctifies the holiness of science are nothing but cavemen in search for something to worship In that case I'm happy to worship my well lit and heated house, my washing machine, dishwasher, oven, clothes, car, contraception, computer, and all the other things that have been discovered in the course of this search. For sure. And your smarphone and your car, with which you sometimes talk and miss when you are away. That is also part of the primitive animism. However, the inventions and technology does not come form science it is the other way: techniques created by artisans with intuition and essay-error precedes science ever. The wright brothers were bicycle artisans. Fulton was not a professor of termodynamics. Their sciences did not exist at his time. was their machines the ones that possibilitated the experiences and the experiments. Nassim Taleb talks a lot about it http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324735104578120953311383448 Consider Britain, whose historic rise during the Industrial Revolution came from tinkerers who gave us innovations like iron making, the steam engine and textile manufacturing. The great names of the golden years of English science were hobbyists, not academics: Charles Darwin, Henry Cavendish, William Parsons, the Rev. Thomas Bayes. Britain saw its decline when it switched to the model of bureaucracy-driven science. America has emulated this earlier model, in the invention of everything from cybernetics to the pricing formulas for derivatives. They were developed by practitioners in trial-and-error mode, drawing continuous feedback from reality. To promote antifragility, we must recognize that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of formal education that a culture supports and its volume of trial-and-error by tinkering. Innovation doesn't require theoretical instruction, what I like to compare to lecturing birds on how to fly. That mythical inversion is, logically an ideological product of rationalism that understand that there is nothing in the human mind that gives truth with the exception of conscious rational rules, all comes from outside in the form of rules created by special, enlightened people. So a bicycle artisan can never invent an airplane, a person can not learn English without knowing grammar. no one can play an instrument without knowing the musical notation. And no one can learn a discipline without interiorizing their academic, antipedagogical, harsh manuals full of formulae, pedantic notations and formalisms devoid of humanity, history and contact with reality. Alberto, I have a lot of sympathy for what you say here and I feel a similar angst against bureaucratic science and pedantic formalisms and notations. And modern education. It tries to kill the ability to dream, to be outrageous and unreasonable. It tries to kill the good stuff. One linguistic symptom is the obsession with innovation, which is a sort of decaffeinated, defanged version of invention. Mostly harmless, as everything should be these days. Telmo. -- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 4:56 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 11:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 10:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might be necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's intelligent. That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think assuming primary materialism is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; but nobody tries to even define primary matter they just look to see if another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics-psychology is assumed, Assumed by whom though? Physicists working on physics? Probably. Philosophers working on consciousness? Some do, some don't. By scientists in general, I would say. Physicists are the easiest to forgive, their work seems valid either way. Neuroscientists, psychologists and social scientists are not so easy to forgive. I personally have no problem with assuming primary materialism, provided that you are aware that it is an assumption. For thousands of years humans looked for consciousness and agency in everything. Then one day someone said let's just forget about ulimate truth and God and what's primary and let's just see what we can say about the shadows...and that's when modern science took off. The discovery of the scientific method had nothing to do with the abandonment of deep questions. It had to do with a rejection of appeals to authority. Don't believe the guy in the funny robe, do the experiment -- and sometimes the thought experiment. But the authorities being abandoned, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas were all of the opinion that thinking about deep questions was the way to learn about the world. What was the perfect form? What was the natural state of a substance? Plato denigrated observation as looking at shadows and the world as an imperfect reflection of ideal forms. Sure there was rejection of the authority of the Church and the ancients - but in favor of what? The protestants just changed to the Bible as the sole authority (and invented fundamentalism). Science arose from rejecting authority in favor of observation of the shadows. You can't observe the ur-stuff of the world, I think you can, but what you find is not communicable. you can only make up models, show they work, and see what ontology they imply. From the 3p view sure. There's nothing wrong with doing those things, in fact it's what my paycheck says that I do for a living. I don't feel that thinking about philosophy interferes with my ability to apply the scientific method. I don't see why it would have to be an either-or proposition. Self-appointed authorities come in many forms, of course, and it's important to not fall for that trap. I'm not sure we even disagree when making things concrete. Which leads us to philosophers, which are largely irrelevant at the moment -- because of their own sort-comings and because there is a strong bias against deep questions in current culture. I think. For me, the relevance of this sort of issue is personal (another preoccupation that goes a bit against the zeitgeist, which is increasingly self-centred but in a superficial fashion). For example, ISTM that it has strong implications in terms of deriving a rational code of ethics and in making life choices. Really? I don't see the implications. Bruno proposes to derive physics, specifically QM from his theory; not change it. So there are no new implications there. Deepak Chopra will no doubt take advantage of it to get rich on some more thinking will make it so woo-woo...when he hears about it. What implications do you refer to? Brent, with all due respect. I value your contributions to the mailing list and learned from them. Even when I disagree with you, you have interesting things to say. But you are too quick with the labelling. It's not really fair play. I think it's quite obvious that I am not defending guys in funny robes or Deepak Chopra. Sorry I didn't mean
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:13 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:35:47 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:40 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might be necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's intelligent. That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think assuming primary materialism is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; but nobody tries to even define primary matter they just look to see if another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics-psychology is assumed, and that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So it's not just a matter of another layer. Well yes, but if Brent's illustration reflects the actual thinking, Bruno's position is logically unviable. Show, don't tell... You're not a Rolf Harris relation are you? :O) Good old uncle Harris! Because although physics--psychology is assumed..that word 'assumed' sits in a special case tense. It means 'for practical purposes' and does not mean 'we know what's fundamental and it's matter so we totally reject the possibility maths or concepts or sexy fantasies are actually what's fundamental' Yes, that is what assumed means. My problem is not with making the assumption, it's not being aware that you are making it. That's why I like you Telmo, you've got some major fucking problems. But they just might be the right kind of fucking problems! So it's a resolvable situation. For Bruno to take his stance, it has to be the case what Brent says is fundamentally wrong and a brutal dogma of 'knowing what we can't know' grips science in iron fist. I'm not sure I follow. What statements by Brent and Bruno are in direct contradiction? Neither is Bruno claiming that comp is true, nor Brent that it is false, as far as I can tell. b Bruno's got problems at this juncture, whatever reading. If it's the same problem that you just mentioned above, then in Bruno context it ain't a good problem because he thinks other humans get a problem that's impossible that he could get. Because I've spent about 30 posts talking about that sort of problem of assuming what we don't know we are assuming, and no matter which way I said it, Bruno apparently didn't have a possibility, in terms of some working background concepts in play, that he could ever assume something he didn't know he assumed. In fact he was clear from start to finish, I was talking jibberish. That's a case of a good problem cut in two, one side murdered and buried and forgotten, the other side pulped, mixed up with a pot of tea, some facial moisturizer and a pack of tasty after eight mints, and generously shared around the room all over, and inside everyone else, while he feasts on 500ml pot of hagen daz all for himself :O) :) I don't think anything like that stands up. All the major scientists wont to nurse a public profile or top up the pension with a popular science book are very clear on this matter. Bruno wrote logical arguments. I don't know if he's right, but I couldn't find a flaw in is reasoning so far (for what that's worth). If a refutation is published, I'll read it. If you write an email refuting it, I promise to read it too. What else matters? What else matters? You don't look 25 yet Telmo. Getting high, and laid dude, is what else matters. I'm not so sure which photo of me you might have seen to get that impression, but the second sentence makes me more relaxed about what might have transpired. Telmo. Cheers Telmo. -- 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 every ... -- 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,
Re: TRONNIES
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:27 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.comwrote: John Clark I plan to save your e-mails and maybe I will read some of them to the audience if and when it turns out that I am correct and am awarded the Nobel prize in Physics. Glory for the winner, humiliation for the loser! This is what science is all about! By the way, none of the brilliant scientists have *tried* to convince me that I am wrong. They all skeptical but they have all encouraged me to make predictions that can be tested. In my book I make 101 predictions. A large number of them can be tested. My offer to send you a free copy of my book still stands. Maybe you can prove that some of my predictions are incorrect - based on observations, not existing theories. John Ross *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Sunday, May 18, 2014 8:02 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 3:27 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote I am a good friend of many brilliant scientist. Most of them are also skeptical of my theory, but none of them has convinced me of any basic errors in my theory I am not one bit surprised that none of those brilliant scientist could convince you that your theory is wrong, the defining characteristic of a crackpot is the inability to make the slightest change in ones views even in the face of overwhelming logic. Many, including me, have pointed out that your model is not stable because it would radiate electromagnetic waves and so things would spiral inward, and that your model violates the conservation of mass/energy, and that your model violates the conservation of momentum, and that your model violates the law of conservation of lepton number, and that your model explains absolutely nothing that had previously been unexplained, and that your model can not be used to calculate anything that had previously been incalculable (actually I have grave doubts your model can be used to calculate ANYTHING). All these devastating criticisms have had absolutely positively zero effect on you; you don't even attempt to refute them other than to simply say no it doesn't. And then just like all good crackpots you ignore logical argument and just keep on spouting the same old tired stuff. John K Clark -- 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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:05 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 May 2014 07:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? I don't know, but I would think not, because comp allows reality to be digitised at any level (e.g. sub atomic) which wouldn't contradict the use of oscillators. This sounds a bit like what someone once told me about early computer storage being done as sound waves that kept bouncing back and forth inside some medium. (A large spring, I think.) I don't know about the spring, but that was eventually done with mercury. Alan Turing proposed a cheaper alternative -- booze. More specifically, gin: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/28/wilkes_centenary_mercury_memory/ About this computer architecture being non-comp, I agree with you and Bruno, of course. I would say that the important distinction here is that it's not a Von Neumann arquitecture. I don't think this makes any difference at the level of abstraction that Bruno works, but might be quite relevant when it comes to the practical engineering effort of building advanced AIs. I am pessimistic about an asynchronous connectionist machine being sufficient, though. This idea resurfaces periodically, and has been tried a number of times. It appear quite likely that the brain has very complex neuro-plasticity mechanisms that depend on the whole shebang: gene expression, molecular diffusion gradients, the interaction of these things with the environment and so on. Of course we don't have to copy the brain implementation, in the same way we don't need to flapping wings to build flying machines. But we might be interested in extracting the abstractions. The brain appears to be a system of self-modifying programs within programs within programs. And it comes from a seed generative program that is evolutionary tuned to a certain environment. Best, Telmo. -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might be necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's intelligent. That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think assuming primary materialism is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; but nobody tries to even define primary matter they just look to see if another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics-psychology is assumed, and that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So it's not just a matter of another layer. Best, Telmo. otherwise a conscious machine, as commonly understood, might have other attributes that can't be deduced from its structure, and hence the engineering approach will fail. (Hence to be fully confident in this approach you should perhaps show what is wrong with Bruno's starting assumptions, or his deductions.) I'm assuming it doesn't and that I can make conscious machine from any assemblage that can interact with the world in a certain way. And I have shown what I think is wrong with Bruno's deductions. In his MGA he relies on the MG being isolated, not part of a world - or when challenged on the point he says it can be expanded to be as large as the whole universe, i.e. to be a world. But I think it makes a difference. I think the MG can only be conscious relative to a world in which it can learn and act. Bruno (being a logician and mathematician) thinks that consciousness doesn't need any external referents. It's not a conclusive refutation, but a point of evidence is that humans in sensory deprivation tanks tend to have their thoughts enter a loop - which I would say shows that they need external reference. I tend to agree with JKC that intelligence is harder (and more important) than consciousness. Brent -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 10:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might be necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's intelligent. That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think assuming primary materialism is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; but nobody tries to even define primary matter they just look to see if another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics-psychology is assumed, Assumed by whom though? Physicists working on physics? Probably. Philosophers working on consciousness? Some do, some don't. By scientists in general, I would say. Physicists are the easiest to forgive, their work seems valid either way. Neuroscientists, psychologists and social scientists are not so easy to forgive. I personally have no problem with assuming primary materialism, provided that you are aware that it is an assumption. Which leads us to philosophers, which are largely irrelevant at the moment -- because of their own sort-comings and because there is a strong bias against deep questions in current culture. I think. For me, the relevance of this sort of issue is personal (another preoccupation that goes a bit against the zeitgeist, which is increasingly self-centred but in a superficial fashion). For example, ISTM that it has strong implications in terms of deriving a rational code of ethics and in making life choices. and that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So it's not just a matter of another layer. Rejected implies they're writing papers refuting something. That would be great. It would mean that people are aware of the assumption. First, there are essentially zero physicists writing papers about consciousness. Second, there are lots of psychologists writing papers; do you expect them to be assuming psychology-physics? What would they do with that assumption? I agree. I was not attacking physicists. In fact, I mostly admire them. To give an example in other fields, Manuel Damásio annoys me a bit. Best, Telmo. Brent -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:40 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might be necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's intelligent. That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think assuming primary materialism is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; but nobody tries to even define primary matter they just look to see if another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics-psychology is assumed, and that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So it's not just a matter of another layer. Well yes, but if Brent's illustration reflects the actual thinking, Bruno's position is logically unviable. Show, don't tell... Because although physics--psychology is assumed..that word 'assumed' sits in a special case tense. It means 'for practical purposes' and does not mean 'we know what's fundamental and it's matter so we totally reject the possibility maths or concepts or sexy fantasies are actually what's fundamental' Yes, that is what assumed means. My problem is not with making the assumption, it's not being aware that you are making it. So it's a resolvable situation. For Bruno to take his stance, it has to be the case what Brent says is fundamentally wrong and a brutal dogma of 'knowing what we can't know' grips science in iron fist. I'm not sure I follow. What statements by Brent and Bruno are in direct contradiction? Neither is Bruno claiming that comp is true, nor Brent that it is false, as far as I can tell. I don't think anything like that stands up. All the major scientists wont to nurse a public profile or top up the pension with a popular science book are very clear on this matter. Bruno wrote logical arguments. I don't know if he's right, but I couldn't find a flaw in is reasoning so far (for what that's worth). If a refutation is published, I'll read it. If you write an email refuting it, I promise to read it too. What else matters? Cheers Telmo. -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 11:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 10:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might be necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's intelligent. That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think assuming primary materialism is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; but nobody tries to even define primary matter they just look to see if another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics-psychology is assumed, Assumed by whom though? Physicists working on physics? Probably. Philosophers working on consciousness? Some do, some don't. By scientists in general, I would say. Physicists are the easiest to forgive, their work seems valid either way. Neuroscientists, psychologists and social scientists are not so easy to forgive. I personally have no problem with assuming primary materialism, provided that you are aware that it is an assumption. For thousands of years humans looked for consciousness and agency in everything. Then one day someone said let's just forget about ulimate truth and God and what's primary and let's just see what we can say about the shadows...and that's when modern science took off. The discovery of the scientific method had nothing to do with the abandonment of deep questions. It had to do with a rejection of appeals to authority. Don't believe the guy in the funny robe, do the experiment -- and sometimes the thought experiment. Which leads us to philosophers, which are largely irrelevant at the moment -- because of their own sort-comings and because there is a strong bias against deep questions in current culture. I think. For me, the relevance of this sort of issue is personal (another preoccupation that goes a bit against the zeitgeist, which is increasingly self-centred but in a superficial fashion). For example, ISTM that it has strong implications in terms of deriving a rational code of ethics and in making life choices. Really? I don't see the implications. Bruno proposes to derive physics, specifically QM from his theory; not change it. So there are no new implications there. Deepak Chopra will no doubt take advantage of it to get rich on some more thinking will make it so woo-woo...when he hears about it. What implications do you refer to? Brent, with all due respect. I value your contributions to the mailing list and learned from them. Even when I disagree with you, you have interesting things to say. But you are too quick with the labelling. It's not really fair play. I think it's quite obvious that I am not defending guys in funny robes or Deepak Chopra. and that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So it's not just a matter of another layer. Rejected implies they're writing papers refuting something. That would be great. It would mean that people are aware of the assumption. First, there are essentially zero physicists writing papers about consciousness. Second, there are lots of psychologists writing papers; do you expect them to be assuming psychology-physics? What would they do with that assumption? I agree. I was not attacking physicists. In fact, I mostly admire them. To give an example in other fields, Manuel Damásio annoys me a bit. Antonio Damasio? Yes, I'm terrible with names... Telmo. Brent -- 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
Re: Rat Park
Hi Kim, Glad you enjoyed it. I agree with everything you say. I think the cage is very complex and hard to break out of. Life is increasingly formatted. I believe this results from social norms, the militaristic schooling system and the job/growth economic mentality, all connected in a vicious cycle. More and more, we can only act under permission. This creates survival anxiety, which in turn lead people to reject education as a goal in itself and seeing it only as one of the hoops they have to jump through to obtain permission to survive. I observe this mentality spreading to earlier stages of education, which is quite sad. Instead of motivating kids to learn for pleasure, out of pure curiosity and a desire for personal development, we try to make them fear the future. Then it's not so surprising that we live in a world ruled by fear instead of freedom. Global surveillance is the most recent metastization of this cancer. But Roger Waters says it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_S-Y199lRM Have a nice weekend! Telmo. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Much appreciated Telmo. What this highlights is something I've always felt very strongly and that is the role of education in helping people to deal with their urges and their impulses. Unfortunately education simply toes the political line of prohibitionism. This for me is one of the saddest things about our society. There is only really one chance for people to come to grips with what life is all about and that happens early in life, during the school years, in fact. There can be no denying that for some people life is experienced as a cage and for others it is a park or playground. Most humans start school believing in the playground theory of existence and many have abandoned that for the cage theory of existence by the end of their schooling. I firmly believe that the scene is set for these kind of choices during school. 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 14 May 2014, at 11:22 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/ -- 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: Rat Park
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:51:06PM +1200, LizR wrote: That's odd. I found it easy to read (the size of the images adjusted to fill my browser window, so if it was too small I could expand the window) and my mouse wheel scrolled the images sideways with no problem. I just followed the link, read the first few panels, then scrolled sideways to read the next panels, and so on to the end. Ahh - the joys of javascript. I didn't think to expand my browser window from its default size. Sorry Russell! I don't like it either. I looked for a user experience-free version but couldn't find it. Telmo. -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 May 2014, at 09:36, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 May 2014, at 16:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess one could start from is physics computable? (As Max Tegmark discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a materialist-type way from the operation of the brain, then consciousness will be computable by definition. Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something obvious? Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so trivial to disprove: even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) 2. brain generates consciousness but 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) so comp = ~comp I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. I guess other might have answer this, but as it is important I am not afraid of repetition. O lost again the connection yesterday so apology for participating to the discussion with a shift. What you miss is, I think, Peter Jones (1Z) argument. He is OK with comp (say yes to the doctor), but only because he attributes consciousness to a computer implemented in a primitive physical reality. Physics might be computable, in the sense that we can predict the physical behavior, but IF primitive matter is necessary for consciousness, then, although a virtual emulation would do (with different matter), an abstract or arithmetical computation would not do, by the lack of the primitive matter. I agree that such an argument is weak, as it does not explain what is the role of primitive matter, except as a criteria of existence, which seems here to have a magical role. (Then the movie-graph argument, or Maudlin's argument, give an idea that how much a primitive matter use here becomes magical: almost like saying that a computation is conscious if there is primitive matter and if God is willing to make it so. We can always reify some mystery to block an application of a theory to reality. Ok, I tried to think about this for a while. It appears that it also connects with the issue can there be computation without a substrate?. Please see what you think of my thoughts, sorry if they are a bit rough and confusing: In a purely mathematical sense, it seems to me that computation is simply a mapping from one value to another. Well, it is a special sort of mapping. There are 2^aleph_0 mapping in general, but only aleph_0 computational mapping. So it is a bit more than a mapping. Any computer program p can be represented as a value under some syntax. Any program + some data, Why + some data? Any additional data can be made part of the program, no? Sure. But it helps to think in both ways. Yes, especially if one actually has to write computer programs :) I am not trying to be pedantic, I am just trying to remove the incidental to examine the matter is fundamental claim. I'm aware that you're kind of playing devil's advocate here, which is part of the serious scientific stance, of course. and don't forget that the universality requirements makes obligatory that some programs will not stop, without us knowing this in advance. Non termination entails a lack of value, here. yet, a non stopping programs might access computational states not met by terminating programs. This doesn't seem true to me. Trivially, whatever computational state a non stopping program accesses can also be accessed by a variation of that program that simply stops at iteration n. What am I missing? You are right, for the relative asteroids reason. But the FPI forces us to consider the universal winner(s) whose measure might depend on infinite histories. We have to reason on all computations, and the infinite one just exists and play a role, even if the infinite sequence of finite approximations plays the same
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 May 2014, at 16:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess one could start from is physics computable? (As Max Tegmark discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a materialist-type way from the operation of the brain, then consciousness will be computable by definition. Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something obvious? Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so trivial to disprove: even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) 2. brain generates consciousness but 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) so comp = ~comp I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. I guess other might have answer this, but as it is important I am not afraid of repetition. O lost again the connection yesterday so apology for participating to the discussion with a shift. What you miss is, I think, Peter Jones (1Z) argument. He is OK with comp (say yes to the doctor), but only because he attributes consciousness to a computer implemented in a primitive physical reality. Physics might be computable, in the sense that we can predict the physical behavior, but IF primitive matter is necessary for consciousness, then, although a virtual emulation would do (with different matter), an abstract or arithmetical computation would not do, by the lack of the primitive matter. I agree that such an argument is weak, as it does not explain what is the role of primitive matter, except as a criteria of existence, which seems here to have a magical role. (Then the movie-graph argument, or Maudlin's argument, give an idea that how much a primitive matter use here becomes magical: almost like saying that a computation is conscious if there is primitive matter and if God is willing to make it so. We can always reify some mystery to block an application of a theory to reality. Ok, I tried to think about this for a while. It appears that it also connects with the issue can there be computation without a substrate?. Please see what you think of my thoughts, sorry if they are a bit rough and confusing: In a purely mathematical sense, it seems to me that computation is simply a mapping from one value to another. Well, it is a special sort of mapping. There are 2^aleph_0 mapping in general, but only aleph_0 computational mapping. So it is a bit more than a mapping. Any computer program p can be represented as a value under some syntax. Any program + some data, Why + some data? Any additional data can be made part of the program, no? and don't forget that the universality requirements makes obligatory that some programs will not stop, without us knowing this in advance. Non termination entails a lack of value, here. yet, a non stopping programs might access computational states not met by terminating programs. This doesn't seem true to me. Trivially, whatever computational state a non stopping program accesses can also be accessed by a variation of that program that simply stops at iteration n. What am I missing? So the notion of value is a bit too much extensional, and miss intensional reality (related to code and means of computation). Because of my objections above, I'm still unconvinced of that... So, taking Lisp as an example, there is a function L such that: L( (+ 1 1) ) = 2 By doing the computation, we in the 1p can know the value of L(p) for a certain p. If p is: (fact 472834723947) Then we cannot do it in our heads. We have to have some powerful computer, spend a lot of energy and so on. Of course, due to the halting problem, the mapping is not guaranteed to exist, and so on. OK. These mappings already exist in Platonia. Why do we have to spend so much energy and effort to obtain some of them? This only seems to make sense if we are embedded in the computation ourselves
Rat Park
http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/ -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote: Agree. Very odd to make the statement Since lossy integration would necessitate continuous damage to existing memories appear to be so controversial that it necessitates the move to a theory of lossless integration. What could be more natural than memories that degrade? I suppose there are folks with photographic memories who may seem to approach lossless integration but the rest of us are still conscious :-) I have my doubts about photographic memory anyway. More likely that they had a result starting from the premise of lossless integration they wanted to publish, and made that move to inflate the relevance of their result. That's what I thought too. I totally agree with Brent and you. Telmo. Terren On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Oops. I forgot to include the link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0126v1.pdf Original Message I don't buy it. For one thing memory IS lossy and it's largely reconstruction. I think their argument only shows that cognition is irreversible in a stat-mech sense. The implication for saying 'yes' or 'no' to the doctor would be that substituting for a small part of your brain might scramble your memories/peronality - but it would still be in principle possible to replace your whole brain by a equivalent Turing machine. But I question even that step. I think one's consciousness is embedded and to some degree 'integrated' into the world; it's this integration and reference to the world that provides 'meaning'. Brent Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using Algorithmic Information Theory Phil Maguire, Philippe Moser, Rebecca Maguire, Virgil Griffith (Submitted on 1 May 2014) In this article we review Tononi's (2008) theory of consciousness as integrated information. We argue that previous formalizations of integrated information (e.g. Griffith, 2014) depend on information loss. Since lossy integration would necessitate continuous damage to existing memories, we propose it is more natural to frame consciousness as a lossless integrative process and provide a formalization of this idea using algorithmic information theory. We prove that complete lossless integration requires noncomputable functions. This result implies that if unitary consciousness exists, it cannot be modelled computationally. -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess one could start from is physics computable? (As Max Tegmark discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a materialist-type way from the operation of the brain, then consciousness will be computable by definition. Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something obvious? Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so trivial to disprove: even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) 2. brain generates consciousness but 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) so comp = ~comp I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. I guess other might have answer this, but as it is important I am not afraid of repetition. O lost again the connection yesterday so apology for participating to the discussion with a shift. What you miss is, I think, Peter Jones (1Z) argument. He is OK with comp (say yes to the doctor), but only because he attributes consciousness to a computer implemented in a primitive physical reality. Physics might be computable, in the sense that we can predict the physical behavior, but IF primitive matter is necessary for consciousness, then, although a virtual emulation would do (with different matter), an abstract or arithmetical computation would not do, by the lack of the primitive matter. I agree that such an argument is weak, as it does not explain what is the role of primitive matter, except as a criteria of existence, which seems here to have a magical role. (Then the movie-graph argument, or Maudlin's argument, give an idea that how much a primitive matter use here becomes magical: almost like saying that a computation is conscious if there is primitive matter and if God is willing to make it so. We can always reify some mystery to block an application of a theory to reality. Ok, I tried to think about this for a while. It appears that it also connects with the issue can there be computation without a substrate?. Please see what you think of my thoughts, sorry if they are a bit rough and confusing: In a purely mathematical sense, it seems to me that computation is simply a mapping from one value to another. Any computer program p can be represented as a value under some syntax. So, taking Lisp as an example, there is a function L such that: L( (+ 1 1) ) = 2 By doing the computation, we in the 1p can know the value of L(p) for a certain p. If p is: (fact 472834723947) Then we cannot do it in our heads. We have to have some powerful computer, spend a lot of energy and so on. Of course, due to the halting problem, the mapping is not guaranteed to exist, and so on. These mappings already exist in Platonia. Why do we have to spend so much energy and effort to obtain some of them? This only seems to make sense if we are embedded in the computation ourselves and, somehow, we have to attain a position in the multiverse where the mapping is known. Once the mapping is known, I can communicate it to you without any further computational effort or energy spending. So according to Peter Jones, consciousness is generated by the effort of moving from one observer position to another. (even rejecting the MWI, even in the classical world, the thing can be seen as a tree of possible future states). The result of the computation does not change depending on when I started it, who started it and so on. This seems, as you say, as an appeal to magic. The main questions that occur to me are: how can such an hypothesis be falsified, and if it is true, where is the ontological difference? If you accept comp but then make such a move, you are proposing something that is fundamentally untestable and that leads to the exact same consequences of its opposite. It feels to me a bit like the free will discussion which, in my view, is solved by the simple realisation that the question does not make sense in the first place (here I agree with John Clark). Best, Telmo. Bruno
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess one could start from is physics computable? (As Max Tegmark discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a materialist-type way from the operation of the brain, then consciousness will be computable by definition. Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something obvious? Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so trivial to disprove: even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) 2. brain generates consciousness but 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) so comp = ~comp I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. Telmo. -- 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: An interview based on Christopher Hitchen's book (parts 1 and 2)
Nice. I am not a Marxist but I respect intellectually honest Marxists. He show intellectual honesty many times, for example when he states that the anti-globalist movement is conservative. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:59 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Jeremy Paxman talking to Christopher Hitchens on Newsnight is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-s9AyNQyCw On 9 May 2014 23:08, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Parts 1 2 of an interview based on Christopher Hitchen's book about God: Part 1: https://vimeo.com/94004548 Part 2: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=787228407968996 Samiya -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 22:12, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess one could start from is physics computable? (As Max Tegmark discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a materialist-type way from the operation of the brain, then consciousness will be computable by definition. Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something obvious? Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so trivial to disprove: even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) 2. brain generates consciousness but 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) so comp = ~comp I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. OK, but if *physics* is computable then the rest follows (doesn't it) ? Of course, but sometimes people claim that physics is not computable but the brain (at the substitution level that generates consciousness) is. Even with this weaker assumption, rejecting strong AI is absurd as per above. Of course it's not absurd under other assumptions, but we're discussing the materialist position here. Cheers Telmo. -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 10 May 2014 20:12, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess one could start from is physics computable? (As Max Tegmark discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a materialist-type way from the operation of the brain, then consciousness will be computable by definition. Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something obvious? You're missing the step where you explain how doing the computations generates consciousness. No, that was the initial assumption. You said: The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter So it is implied that some none-computable part of the brain generates consciousness, which immediately contradicts the assumption that brain behaviour is computable. That is what I understand consciousness is computable to mean. Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so trivial to disprove: even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) Not and let's say comp, since that is what you are setting out to prove 2. brain generates consciousness but 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) No, that doesn't follow. That brain behaviour is computable means that we are able to compute such things as the sequence in which neurons will fire and the effect neuronal activity will have on muscle. so comp = ~comp I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. A computer model of a thunderstorm will predict the behaviour of a real thunderstorm but it won't be wet. In contrast, I believe that a computer model of a brain will not only predict the behaviour of a real brain but will also be conscious. However, I don't think this is trivially obvious. A computer model and computability are different things. We have to be precise about what the initial assumptions mean. Best, Telmo. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 10 May 2014 20:12, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I guess one could start from is physics computable? (As Max Tegmark discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a materialist-type way from the operation of the brain, then consciousness will be computable by definition. Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something obvious? You're missing the step where you explain how doing the computations generates consciousness. No, that was the initial assumption. You said: The anti-comp crowd claim that even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter So it is implied that some none-computable part of the brain generates consciousness, which immediately contradicts the assumption that brain behaviour is computable. It could be that some system the behaviour of which is entirely computable gives rise to consciousness. But consciousness is not a behaviour. If physics is computable, then there is not part of reality that cannot be replaced by a computation. Your brain can be replaced by an equivalent computation and the world where you live can be replaced by a computation. In this case, the computation will be able to generate wet, hot, blue, etc.. But if some part of reality is not computable, and this is the part that originates consciousness, and the brain contains this part, then the brain is not computable. No? That is what I understand consciousness is computable to mean. Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so trivial to disprove: even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) Not and let's say comp, since that is what you are setting out to prove 2. brain generates consciousness but 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) No, that doesn't follow. That brain behaviour is computable means that we are able to compute such things as the sequence in which neurons will fire and the effect neuronal activity will have on muscle. so comp = ~comp I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. A computer model of a thunderstorm will predict the behaviour of a real thunderstorm but it won't be wet. In contrast, I believe that a computer model of a brain will not only predict the behaviour of a real brain but will also be conscious. However, I don't think this is trivially obvious. A computer model and computability are different things. We have to be precise about what the initial assumptions mean. Computability is an abstract concept. I understand the idea that a physical system is computable as meaning that there is an algorithm that allows us to predict its behaviour. But if the algorithm can predict it's behaviour perfectly, then the system can be replaced by the algorithm. Of course, when you tell the computer to print a document, it sends instructions to the printer, a device that then interacts with the physical world. But if this part is also computable, then it could inject directly into your brain the feeling of being able to hold a paper that you can read, then tear apart and throw in the algorithmic trash bin. If all these things are possible, there is not basis to claim any difference between one version of the paper or the other. If you compute the entire universe fully and can live inside this computation (as per comp), then I see no basis to claim that there are two universes. They are interchangeable in the same sense that two hydrogen atoms are interchangeable. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that if you accept comp you have to accept the hole shebang. There is no dualist middle-ground that doesn't logically contradict comp. I don't see how this could be applied to consciousness being computable in the same
Re: God is an atheist!
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:45:32 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, May 8, 2014 9:40:58 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alberto G. Corona agoc...@gmail.comwrote: In this -single universe- context, the fine tuning of the physical constants are miracles by the way, so the hypothesis is true. I tend to agree. This is why I reject the single universe -- it's an extraordinary claim with no evidences. Why would the expectation of singularity be any more extra-ordinary than the expectation of multiplicity? Because of the finely tuned physical constants. Finely tuned physical constants is consistent with a sense-primitive universe. Physics conforms to experience, so it is only finely tuned relative to an expectation of alternate, sense-independent physics. Humm.. I think that a problem we have here, and I think that this is also a source of your disagreement with Bruno, is that you somehow reject the idea that mathematical symbols are representations of an underlaying abstraction. I like the idea of subjugating physics to experience, it seems to be a fertile path. I am more willing to accept that you explain away x = vt or f = ma or e = mc^2 in this fashion than the physical constants. The previous are relations, the constants are specificities. There is something intuitively nasty with the idea that mathematics is unreasonably effective at describing reality, but then these ugly, super-specific constants show up. It offends me aesthetically, I cannot put it any other way. The MWI recovers the simple beauty of it all. Can you explain away the constants in a way that does not require arbitrary specificity? Our ordinary experience is that we share many common realities and that those realities are very consistent. I agree. In a multiverse, I would expect much more interruption of our expectations. Why? Suppose Everett is right. Is interpretation recovers the classical world from the many worlds. Why wouldn't that be enough? Because there would have to be many more worlds which are shades of semi-classical, non-classical, and non-sensical instead. Multiverse to me seems good for only one thing: To rescue our expectations of mechanism Mechanism for me is not so much an expectation as it is a hope. It's the hope that we live in a rational universe, as Gödel called it. and pimordial unconsciousness. I'm not so sure about this. I tend to see the MWI in the context of primordial consciousness. Once we admit that view is no less compulsive than anthropomorphism, then there is no reason to impose the machina ex deus of near-infinite multiplicity. And what do we do then? I would not expect that singularity/unity would hold the kind of significance that it seems to for us. Why? Because in a MWI ontology, all uniqueness would be an irrelevant illusion. We are made of cells that are self-contained and interact only locally. Wouldn't that already break our sense of unity? We care about what is unique vs what is redundant. Why? Because organisms that are good at pattern recognition are more resilient that organisms that are not? Why would pattern recognition be related to uniqueness though? Because the feeling of uniqueness seems to be related to our brain failing to match a pattern or, putting it another way, to fail at a prediction. This assumible hypothesis means, by the multiverse assumption that this has already happened somewhere somehow. And very well we may be, here and now, the product of it. Sure. I am fairly convinced that we already live inside such a simulation. That just means that the structure of the multi-verse is a fractal. Not so surprising, but fun to think about. I don't think that simulation of any kind is possible without a foundation of consciousness to be simulated in the first place. If that's true, and the universe is made of 100% genuine awareness, then the probability of a 'simulation' becomes trivial. Simulation does not exist, it is only an idea that genuine awareness has about the difference between direct and indirect awareness. The idea can be true locally, but not ultimately. In the absolute sense, nothing can be simulated. I think I agree. I see the simulation as just a set of things that can be experienced. If comp is true, and some Lovecraftian creature in a non-euclidian reality is running the universal dovetailer where we exist, it cannot really be said that the Great Old Ones created us. They just unleashed us, I guess. There's no point in starting a cult to worship them -- although there could be some entertainment value in that. Even so, Uberthulhu has the same problem that we do. Poor Uberthulhu :) The explanatory gap is not explained, only miniaturized
Re: God is an atheist!
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Any theory that stand over non intelligent axioms has to accept an infinity of multiverses, That may be refined, taking into account information=0 etc, but I will not go further on that. I would say that the anthropic principle allows for a dumb multiverse where all the universes where you can actually exists contain the illusion of intelligent design. That multiverse must include among other things the universes with gods , and the universes with goods that have miracles, and the universes with gods that have miracles whose first miracle is the creation of the universe by the god. I am not so sure of this. An infinity of universes does not imply that there is a universe for which something is possible. You can have infinite variations within certain constraints. For example: you can have the infinite set of all the possible combinations of english characters and never see a chinese character. It depends on the generative rule. I'm not sure, for example, that a universal dove tailer produces all conceivable universes -- to use a simple trick, it cannot produce a universe that was not generated by computation. I would say that the MWI necessarily implies the existence of worlds where deities appear to exist, but with two caveats: - the probability of finding yourself in such a world is tremendously small; - the deity is not stable, even if you find yourself in such a world, with very high probability the deity will fail in the next instant. I say this because the MWI assumes the wave equation, so the generative rule already limits what's possible, even at infinity. Is there some flaw in my reasoning? And what if certain kinds of miracles are one more among the many preconditions for a universe with intelligent beings for some reason that we still don´t know? That could be the case, but then they are not miracles. They are just laws of reality that we don't know about yet. In this -single universe- context, the fine tuning of the physical constants are miracles by the way, so the hypothesis is true. I tend to agree. This is why I reject the single universe -- it's an extraordinary claim with no evidences. The multiverse is the hypothesis neccessary in order to rule out the miracle. What more -single universe- miracles that we still don´t know are necessary for intelligent sentient human life? Ruling out miracles is just an optimistic attitude: we assume that we can understand. There's no way to prove this, it's just an attitude towards knowledge. If we don't have this attitude, the alternative is to give up. Given that his attitude gave us modern medicine, electricity and so on (the so on includes the fact that we can have this debate at a distance), there are utilitarian reasons to adopt it, if nothing else. Yet the mere existence of intelligence in this universe and the easily acceptable hypothesis by naturalists that after some time we will be capable to create or emulate worlds with simulated living beings or robots in this universe that probably by the laws of robotics (Asimov et al) have to virtually worship us in order to create or be part of an self sustainable society... Why would they have to worship us? I don't see how that follows. This assumible hypothesis means, by the multiverse assumption that this has already happened somewhere somehow. And very well we may be, here and now, the product of it. Sure. I am fairly convinced that we already live inside such a simulation. That just means that the structure of the multi-verse is a fractal. Not so surprising, but fun to think about. Telmo. 2014-05-08 13:36 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: What if God is a Boltzmann Brain? He is likely not, but what they heck, it's a shot at looking at the issue from another angle. Another thought, is thing of the Big Mind (shrug) as doing the multiverse using the Schrodinger universal wave function, and allow me to use hugh evertt the 3rd's interpretation, ok? This is a ultra-gigantic amount of cosmii to initiate biology inside of, a thankless task, that would poop anyone out (anthropomorphism here) even God. Let's not cling frantically to what Aquinas thought about God. Atheist Shmatheist. By the way your graphic or whatever couldn't appear on this boys email. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, May 8, 2014 1:09 am Subject: God is an atheist! As hopefully the above will demonstrate, if I managed to upload the picture... -- 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
Re: God is an atheist!
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, May 8, 2014 9:40:58 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alberto G. Corona agoc...@gmail.comwrote: In this -single universe- context, the fine tuning of the physical constants are miracles by the way, so the hypothesis is true. I tend to agree. This is why I reject the single universe -- it's an extraordinary claim with no evidences. Why would the expectation of singularity be any more extra-ordinary than the expectation of multiplicity? Because of the finely tuned physical constants. Our ordinary experience is that we share many common realities and that those realities are very consistent. I agree. In a multiverse, I would expect much more interruption of our expectations. Why? Suppose Everett is right. Is interpretation recovers the classical world from the many worlds. Why wouldn't that be enough? I would not expect that singularity/unity would hold the kind of significance that it seems to for us. Why? We are made of cells that are self-contained and interact only locally. Wouldn't that already break our sense of unity? We care about what is unique vs what is redundant. Why? Because organisms that are good at pattern recognition are more resilient that organisms that are not? This assumible hypothesis means, by the multiverse assumption that this has already happened somewhere somehow. And very well we may be, here and now, the product of it. Sure. I am fairly convinced that we already live inside such a simulation. That just means that the structure of the multi-verse is a fractal. Not so surprising, but fun to think about. I don't think that simulation of any kind is possible without a foundation of consciousness to be simulated in the first place. If that's true, and the universe is made of 100% genuine awareness, then the probability of a 'simulation' becomes trivial. Simulation does not exist, it is only an idea that genuine awareness has about the difference between direct and indirect awareness. The idea can be true locally, but not ultimately. In the absolute sense, nothing can be simulated. I think I agree. I see the simulation as just a set of things that can be experienced. If comp is true, and some Lovecraftian creature in a non-euclidian reality is running the universal dovetailer where we exist, it cannot really be said that the Great Old Ones created us. They just unleashed us, I guess. There's no point in starting a cult to worship them -- although there could be some entertainment value in that. Cheers Telmo. Craig Telmo. 2014-05-08 13:36 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com: What if God is a Boltzmann Brain? He is likely not, but what they heck, it's a shot at looking at the issue from another angle. Another thought, is thing of the Big Mind (shrug) as doing the multiverse using the Schrodinger universal wave function, and allow me to use hugh evertt the 3rd's interpretation, ok? This is a ultra-gigantic amount of cosmii to initiate biology inside of, a thankless task, that would poop anyone out (anthropomorphism here) even God. Let's not cling frantically to what Aquinas thought about God. Atheist Shmatheist. By the way your graphic or whatever couldn't appear on this boys email. -Original Message- From: LizR liz...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, May 8, 2014 1:09 am Subject: God is an atheist! As hopefully the above will demonstrate, if I managed to upload the picture... -- 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/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-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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 20:19, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 11:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. This is true, however real capitalism - free market capitalism - doesn't work because it doesn't pay the full (i.e. environmental) price of production. At least it hasn't to date, which means so far it's just been a bubble / ponzi scheme. It is fair to argue that free market capitalism provides no mechanism to create some concerted effort to reduce environmental impact. However, neither does the current system. This is one problem one faces when defending the free market: one is usually cornered into comparing it with an *idealised* version of the current system. It will never live up to that. I'm not comparing it. I'm saying it doesn't work. I don't say anything does work, but I would hope our best minds would be trying to work out what might work, rather than defending a system that doesn't. Maybe it's a bit too optimistic to assume that something that our best minds would come up with would be adopted or even considered. Political parties + mainstream media created a deadlock that is very hard to break. If you want to discuss some idea, most people are trained to try to figure out your tribe and your ulterior motives. They won't consider the idea, they will label it: oh this guy is a marxist or oh, this guy is a right-wing nutter. If you have a set of ideas that are hard to corner one-dimensionally, they will just assume you're a plain nutter. We are very well domesticated by now. Anyway, here's my take: I think that it would be now possible, with crypto-currencies, to create a free market with a guaranteed minimum income. The minimum income would not be indexed to wealth (everyone would get the same) and it would be self-adapting to keep everyone above the poverty line. I believe that a clever algorithm could encode this into the mechanics of the currency itself, without the need for centralised control. It's not trivial, of course. What makes something a bubble / ponzi scheme is the implicit necessity of infinite growth for sustainability. This is precisely the requirement of the current system, in which countries can run public debts that are larger than the total money supply. We just saw one iteration of the ponzi scheme explode in 2007. Or the current european pensions scheme, where workers pay the pensions of retired people -- which require infinite population growth for it not to collapse. In fact, my generation is the one in whose hands the system exploded, we are likely not going to have any pensions, and there are already aggressive cuts happening even for the currently retired (who payed for full pensions all their lives but now only get a part of it, they would be better off had they been allowed to just save that money). A free market where the government cannot issue money is the furthest possible thing from a ponzi scheme: you cannot lend money that does not exist. The opposite of ponzi scheme is an economy based on deflation, which also has another nice property: your money tends to increase in value with time, so it also solves the pensions issue in a sustainable manner, which is directly indexed to economic activity. It can only increase in value insofar as there is a matching increase in resources. I agree, I have long said that the problem with the current system is the religious desire for economic growth, which leads to the production of baubles while elsewhere people starve. (But unlimited growth is the mantra of free market capitalism, at least in its current form...) Unlimited growth = ponzi scheme, environmentally if in no other way. Ok, I need a new name for what I mean by free market capitalism... If we can exploit the resources of the solar system, at least, it would make more sense. We have a long way to go to Kardashev One. But no sign of that happening and the Earth passed its carrying capacity in (it's estimated) the 1980s. Since then we've been running on empty. Also, the environmental costs don't make it a ponzi scheme because the savings they enable are reflected in the cost of goods: provided there is free competition. They do, because if no one pays (ie cleans up, restores the atmosphere, replaces the fossil fuels etc) we are forcing future generations to live in a degraded world, and possibly even die to pay our bills. That's a good point. Telmo. -- You received this message because you
Re: The British Comedian's Joke
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:09:47PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now Nice :) I have a theory: a culture cannot be simultaneously good at comedy and gastronomy. Case in point: the British vs. the French. Not sure about standup, but the French do do a good farce. Examples: La Cage aux Folles, or Topaz. (The American version of La Cage aux Folles (Birdcage, IIRC) was rubbish compared with the French original). Even joke theories get shredded to pieces in this list! 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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: UDA video (was Re: saying no to the doctor...)
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 May 2014, at 13:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 14:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 LOL. Not bad. Actually I made myself comic trips to explain UDA in the earlier version. I was used to draw a lot. Comics are pretty to use to describe that type of thought experiment. Come on Bruno, show us! My scanner does not work. But I found the diary, so I need just to think taking it next time I go at IRIDIA (and that someone show me how to find and use some scanner which should be there) ... Maybe it's easier to just find someone who would take a photo with a smartphone. Meanwhile, to console you, here is my last talk at IRIDIA. It is a playlist of 3 videos not yet publicly available on YouTube (you can't find it by searching on YT, but feel free to share). The sound in that room was terrible, so please believe I can be less bad---in english, but for the talk itself I missed some occasion to be clearer. I regret also my comment on atheism (which was not useful). My friends who did the video made a good job to save as much as possible from that bad sound though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW2WWQylbwMlist=PLvvqQQ-1XfwzKceR7ciJTtij3nj1PRtiYfeature=mh_lolz Feel free to comment, here or there. Thanks Bruno, nice! I will watch it this weekend. I noticed it's unlisted. I wanted to press like but I'm not sure you want it to be more public. Do you mind? Telmo. Have you seen if that author tackles the duplication theme? I don't think so, but (s)he makes fun of logicians: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/10 A bit a classical theme, yet I always laugh at such logician humor :) Bruno :) (Like in UDA or in the movie prestige). Let us know if and when (that should exist) you find one. I might scan my own comics and send it here. Cheers, Bruno Cheers, Telmo. -- 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. 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/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. 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/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: Evolution from Scripture
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 11:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. This is true, however real capitalism - free market capitalism - doesn't work because it doesn't pay the full (i.e. environmental) price of production. At least it hasn't to date, which means so far it's just been a bubble / ponzi scheme. It is fair to argue that free market capitalism provides no mechanism to create some concerted effort to reduce environmental impact. However, neither does the current system. This is one problem one faces when defending the free market: one is usually cornered into comparing it with an *idealised* version of the current system. It will never live up to that. What makes something a bubble / ponzi scheme is the implicit necessity of infinite growth for sustainability. This is precisely the requirement of the current system, in which countries can run public debts that are larger than the total money supply. We just saw one iteration of the ponzi scheme explode in 2007. Or the current european pensions scheme, where workers pay the pensions of retired people -- which require infinite population growth for it not to collapse. In fact, my generation is the one in whose hands the system exploded, we are likely not going to have any pensions, and there are already aggressive cuts happening even for the currently retired (who payed for full pensions all their lives but now only get a part of it, they would be better off had they been allowed to just save that money). A free market where the government cannot issue money is the furthest possible thing from a ponzi scheme: you cannot lend money that does not exist. The opposite of ponzi scheme is an economy based on deflation, which also has another nice property: your money tends to increase in value with time, so it also solves the pensions issue in a sustainable manner, which is directly indexed to economic activity. It can only increase in value insofar as there is a matching increase in resources. Also, the environmental costs don't make it a ponzi scheme because the savings they enable are reflected in the cost of goods: provided there is free competition. A system that paid fair wages and the full costs of production, and had a free market and a government limited to providing infrastructure could be called successful capitalism (or it could equally be called successful communism) but we don't have it yet, and until we do we can't claim that we've *ever* had a system that works. Hence my earlier comments about (what we've been calling) capitalism heading towards the greatest death toll of all, unless we sort out the encironmental aspects p.d.q. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Hm. It all sounds a bit Ponzi-like to me. If you go by that definition alone. In reality, mining becomes increasingly harder as we approach the hard limit of 21 million btc. The hard limit is already very non-ponzi-like. Fiat money is the one that doesn't have such a limit, and gives you no assurance about how much is going to be issued. Telmo. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-05-05 10:30 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Hm. It all sounds a bit Ponzi-like to me. If you go by that definition alone. In reality, mining becomes increasingly harder as we approach the hard limit of 21 million btc. The hard limit is already very non-ponzi-like. Fiat money is the one that doesn't have such a limit, and gives you no assurance about how much is going to be issued. As the goods available in exchange of that money are not limited (nor is the population able to use that money), this arbitrary limit is bad... new comers have less, first times users become rich, True, but they also take more risk. If the system works, they are rewarded for providing the seed money that allows the market to exist in the first place. The amount by which they became rich is proportional to the value created by the system. the money is extremely deflationist, it does not encourage to do investment... lost bitcoin are lost forever augmenting its deflationist nature. I am of the opinion that deflation is a good thing, because it is precisely the system that can liberate us from the job-based mentality we are currently under. Humanity could run on people working just a couple of hours a day, yet most people are enslaved doing unnecessary work for most of their waking hours, because jobs are the only way to distribute wealth under an inflationist economy. Under a deflationist economy you can work until you have enough money and then stop, and you can better control the rate at which you wish to accumulate wealth: work hard for a few years or spread it more and work just a few hours. The rigged game of inflationist economies became obvious with feminism: once women joined the work force, it became harder for families to survive on a single salary. It's an enslavement system that deprives children of spending time with their parents, with all the well known psychological outcomes. The system is totally unfair. Fairness is a problematic concept, firstly because it's uncomputable and secondly because it's easily manipulated. For example, humans have a cognitive bias were they are more likely empathise with attractive people than ugly people. Charismatic speakers can skew the perception of fairness to their will. Why would we replace a bad system by another bad system ? Why would we thanks the first time users by an unfair amount of wealth ? If bitcoin replaces the current system, it will have to be on its own merits. It does not have the power to enforce its own use, like fiat currency has. So, if you're right, you have nothing to worry about. Between two bad systems, I prefer keeping the current one. And that's a nice feature of bitcoin: you're not forced to use it. Telmo. Quentin Telmo. -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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: saying no to the doctor...
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:12 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, some 2+ decades ago I think I had a reason to avert from the topic called *panpsychism* (would be hard to recall it adequately now). As I remember I called the phenomenon covered by this misnomer PANSENSITIVITY (what I would not like to defend today anymore). Psych seems to me too 'human' to be applicable to the entire world (=Mme. Nature). Why would you reduce the MWI reflexibility into ourflimsy human brainfunctions? (Even i f you extend them into human? mentality total). John, Maybe I used the term incorrectly. What I mean by panpsychism is that I suspect that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality and not generated at a higher level by neuron interactions. So I see no reason to assume that my tea cup is not conscious, although I suspect that the contents of its experience are null, so it's if it was. I don't see consciousness as inherent to human beings. I am fully convinced that higher animal, at least, are conscious just like us. Telmo. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- 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: saying no to the doctor...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 21:18, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. The problem here is twofold: 1) what pan refers to? (A physical world, then you need to say no to the doctor, Arithmetical truth? perhaps, if the brain is really a consciousness filter (I am still not sure if this makes really sense with comp). 2) what *is* psychisme (is it Turing emulable? if yes primitive matter is an illusion, and physics is a branch of theology, if not what is it?) I just mean that I am inclined to see consciousness as fundamental, so I believe this puts me on the Platonic camp. The idea that physical reality is a dream of consciousness appeals to me. I think your theory provides a very compelling path to understanding how the dream(s) arise, but I don't think it can tell us what the dreamer is. I'm inclined to take the dreamer as fundamental, the absolute, god in a non-theistic sense... I also like your idea of machines introspecting. This leads us to something that match our intuitions: a dog is conscious, a tea cup is not. But not because the dog's brain magically generates consciousness, just because the dog's brain is capable of machine introspection, and thus capable of providing content to the dream. Telmo. Bruno Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- 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. 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/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: saying no to the doctor...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 14:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 LOL. Not bad. Actually I made myself comic trips to explain UDA in the earlier version. I was used to draw a lot. Comics are pretty to use to describe that type of thought experiment. Come on Bruno, show us! Have you seen if that author tackles the duplication theme? I don't think so, but (s)he makes fun of logicians: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/10 :) (Like in UDA or in the movie prestige). Let us know if and when (that should exist) you find one. I might scan my own comics and send it here. Cheers, Bruno Cheers, Telmo. -- 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. 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/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 British Comedian's Joke
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now Nice :) I have a theory: a culture cannot be simultaneously good at comedy and gastronomy. Case in point: the British vs. the French. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had been going on for centuries. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice between fighting for survival or succumbing. There was no Spain at the time, and no unifying concept of Europeans. These things came later. In a sense, the western world as we understand it today was forged at this time. The crusades where not only a war against the arabs, they were also a strategy by the vatican to consolidate its power and erase the influence of older European religions. You still find many traces of these religions if you visit the north of Portugal and Spain. You say it like it was the other way around. A very popular myth in the Muslim world of todaymaybe once it was prouder than that, I don't know. There are several records that seem to indicate that the Muslims were a much more tolerant civilisation than the several European kingdoms at the time. For example, they had universities in the iberian peninsula and would allow non-muslims to enrol. Also, it appears that they respected local religions and never attacked or destroyed their places of worship. They were clearly more technologically advanced, had a much better understanding of mathematics and its applications and so on. Later on, Portugal initiated the Age of Discoveries by a fluke of History, thus setting in motion the chain of events that eventually lead to today's western hegemony. Both the Moors and the Chineses were much better positioned to do it, technologically and culturally. The Muslim civilisation regressed tremendously to the current times, and it's now going through some dark ages period. As usual, religious fundamentalism seems to play a big role in this. But accountability at the cultural level is not an Islamic strong suite in our time. Look at our guest right here. Bizarre that he pretends everything is ok. It isn'tEverywhere Muslims have settled in Europe is an unfolding disaster. There's no respect or regard for being in another peoples beloved lands and culture. Maybe so, but the solution is to help raise them out of poverty, not to attack them. Sharia should not be tolerated in the western world, but apart from that the solution is to increase trade and economic cooperation, not to wage wars. Religious fundamentalism festers amongst the people who have nothing to lose, and the sociopaths who explore this state of affairs. We should respect the prime directive :) Telmo. -- 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.
saying no to the doctor...
The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
Hi ghibbsa, On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:09:10 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had been going on for centurie Well, you have voiced a summary view of one camp of historians, and I have voiced the summary view of another. You seem to acknowledge a tide was turning that the direction was that of Islam being pushed back having made inroads into Christian lands. Of course hit is true what comes under the Crusades header is a really complex long running piece of history. Ok, we can agree on this. I simplified favouring Europe, and you simplified favouring Islam. I don't feel I'm favouring Islam. I just accused them of regressing to dark ages... I am simply proposing that they had a more advanced civilisation than Europe at a certain point in history. I would say your simplification is much more typical these days, than mine. I'd also have to note that your reaction for my sin goes a lot further. Whereas I keep my simplification focused at the start of the crusades and mention what is an unfolding disaster in Europe now, you sort of generalize your disfavour to this familiar - and lets face it pretty dominant idea that Europeans can be credited with much everything bad. Not at all. I think that all major civilisations can be credited with a lot of good and bad things. Furthermore, I can tell you that western civilisation is by far the closest to my values in modern times. I criticise western civilisation because I care and hold it to a very high standard. But not their accomplishments... The accomplishments of western civilisation are numerous and incredible, and span centuries. I think you are assuming a disagreement that we don't have. those are written off as accidents, thefts, or universalized so other peoples share equally...but strangely never have to universalize or put down to accidentsand thefts any of their own. Isn't it actually true, that Europeans currently t the opposite, only bad stuff can be associated, and it is, continually and spread nice and thickly. But not the accomplishments and good things. Europeans suddenly don't exist at all when that comes up. But every other people seems to get the exact opposite. The failings are not to be mentioned, ever. The accomplishments...these must be neverendingly praised and celebrated. You don't find that unfair telmo? I mean, I said nothing about any of that...but I did use a positive word European like something like that actually has an existence. And I did simplify the other way. Maybe that did it. I was just saying that the Europeans were not an organised entity in that specific point in time. They were organised before under the Roman Empire and became organised again later under the Vatican. So my point was simply to question your statement that some organised entity had to take sudden action against an external aggression. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice betyween fighting for r survival or succumbing. a There was no Spain at the time, and no unifying concept of Europeans. These things came later. In a sense, the western world as we understand it today was forged at this time. The crusades where not only a war against the arabs, they were also a strategy by the vatican to consolidate
Re: saying no to the doctor...
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow. For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to compete fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. But the problem here is not the ism itself. The problem is in the human addiction to money or power. To compete fairly needs good separation of all powers, good renewing of powers, etc. Today there are powerful interest fighting against such separation, and the internet itself can be in peril. Don't hesitate to sign petitions against it. I put links on my facebook page (*). If we don't remain vigilant, we get the ism that we can tolerate until it is too late. Bruno (*) https://www.facebook.com/Bruno.Marchal24 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/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: Evolution from Scripture
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, I admire your self-control in 'religious' topics. Do you indeed have a well fitting definition of religious? Dear John, I don't have a good definition. I do have a distinction though: good religious feelings come from contemplating how much we don't know, bad ones come from pretending we know what we don't. Cheers, Telmo. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.auwrote: On 2 May 2014, at 6:05 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 02-May-2014, at 11:03 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. Not trying to convince anyone. Just sharing so that whoever finds it worth considering considers. Samiya The only thing you are sharing on this list is your deep personal emotional need for people to show respect for your holy book. Like all those smitten by some ancient text, you are only vaguely concealing the fact that you are out to proselytise for your favourite religion. You are clearly a soldier in the army of Islam and you are out to convert the infidel. I must say you are getting pretty boring. You have tried every conceivable angle by now to fixate everyone onto the Qu'ran and you simply won't give up until people love you for your deep religious fervour. Buddy - it simply ain't gonna happen in this place. You are not advancing anything other than arguments from authority as you have been told multiple times by now. This kind of thing cannot be concealed by any amount of contrived scholarly nonsense, most of which serves only to bore people on this list to death, mainly because of the selective and tendentious reasoning behind your posts. I'm afraid there isn't much meat in your sandwich. I had a friend from Saudi Arabia who opened a cafe* near my house at the time. He practiced Islam but was very discrete about it. He was a smart guy, and willing to discuss his beliefs without any intent to proselytise. He never started that conversation, I was the one curious about it. Once he was insisting with me that I should try some new import beer that he just got. I asked him how could he encourage me to drink, if he was my friend and believed that to be a sin. He said: you are lucky. you don't know any better, so Allah doesn't mind. So I follow his advice to this day and steer clear of any religious enlightenment that could interfere with life's little pleasures! :) Cheers, Telmo. * in the european sense, so it also served booze Kim Jones Brent -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 2 May 2014, at 6:05 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 02-May-2014, at 11:03 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. Not trying to convince anyone. Just sharing so that whoever finds it worth considering considers. Samiya The only thing you are sharing on this list is your deep personal emotional need for people to show respect for your holy book. Like all those smitten by some ancient text, you are only vaguely concealing the fact that you are out to proselytise for your favourite religion. You are clearly a soldier in the army of Islam and you are out to convert the infidel. I must say you are getting pretty boring. You have tried every conceivable angle by now to fixate everyone onto the Qu'ran and you simply won't give up until people love you for your deep religious fervour. Buddy - it simply ain't gonna happen in this place. You are not advancing anything other than arguments from authority as you have been told multiple times by now. This kind of thing cannot be concealed by any amount of contrived scholarly nonsense, most of which serves only to bore people on this list to death, mainly because of the selective and tendentious reasoning behind your posts. I'm afraid there isn't much meat in your sandwich. I had a friend from Saudi Arabia who opened a cafe* near my house at the time. He practiced Islam but was very discrete about it. He was a smart guy, and willing to discuss his beliefs without any intent to proselytise. He never started that conversation, I was the one curious about it. Once he was insisting with me that I should try some new import beer that he just got. I asked him how could he encourage me to drink, if he was my friend and believed that to be a sin. He said: you are lucky. you don't know any better, so Allah doesn't mind. So I follow his advice to this day and steer clear of any religious enlightenment that could interfere with life's little pleasures! :) Cheers, Telmo. * in the european sense, so it also served booze Kim Jones Brent -- 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: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/28/2014 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bewrote: On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bewrote: On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.com' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.comwrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181 A nice weekend to everyone! Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has a nice tree going back in time. Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient organisms. Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some the grains of salt. I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by another (better or worst) religion. Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the social construct and religion as the private experience. Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth. Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to that truth, even if they depend on it. cooperation strategies needs some goal/sense, for which the cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or explicit religion or reality conception, I think. I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple things selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. Then it all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when seeing from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a view of public religion as more of a consequence than a cause. Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in arithmetic, technically). To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are less clear to me. Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable. Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead. Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that remains to be seen. Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp as soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that direction. Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can transcend biology at different levels. For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little social bacteria, with radio and GSM, constituting a giant computer. The virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the arms of the Milky way. You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and legs, then you say something highly psychedelic :) Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong) atheism/materialism? Hmm :) The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :) Where would you say it branches from, in that tree? I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism). Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions (if not in all brain or universal numbers). We will get virtual, but that is relative, and from the absolute view we already are (assuming mechanism). Sure, virtual is like natural, I'm not sure it means anything. In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.com' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@ googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181 A nice weekend to everyone! Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has a nice tree going back in time. Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient organisms. Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some the grains of salt. I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by another (better or worst) religion. Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the social construct and religion as the private experience. Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth. Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to that truth, even if they depend on it. cooperation strategies needs some goal/sense, for which the cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or explicit religion or reality conception, I think. I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple things selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. Then it all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when seeing from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a view of public religion as more of a consequence than a cause. Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in arithmetic, technically). To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are less clear to me. Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable. Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead. Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that remains to be seen. Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp as soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that direction. Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can transcend biology at different levels. For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little social bacteria, with radio and GSM, constituting a giant computer. The virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the arms of the Milky way. You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and legs, then you say something highly psychedelic :) Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong) atheism/materialism? Hmm :) The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :) Where would you say it branches from, in that tree? I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism). Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions (if not in all brain or universal numbers). We will get virtual, but that is relative, and from the absolute view we already are (assuming mechanism). Sure, virtual is like natural, I'm not sure it means anything. In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can access, those where we keep our memories, and those where we don't. Both are infinite in numbers, but have different relative measure. Apparently
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181 A nice weekend to everyone! Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has a nice tree going back in time. Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient organisms. Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some the grains of salt. I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by another (better or worst) religion. Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the social construct and religion as the private experience. Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth. Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to that truth, even if they depend on it. cooperation strategies needs some goal/sense, for which the cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or explicit religion or reality conception, I think. I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple things selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. Then it all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when seeing from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a view of public religion as more of a consequence than a cause. Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in arithmetic, technically). To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are less clear to me. Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable. Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead. Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that remains to be seen. Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp as soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that direction. Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can transcend biology at different levels. For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little social bacteria, with radio and GSM, constituting a giant computer. The virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the arms of the Milky way. You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and legs, then you say something highly psychedelic :) Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong) atheism/materialism? Hmm :) The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :) Where would you say it branches from, in that tree? I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism). Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions (if not in all brain or universal numbers). We will get virtual, but that is relative, and from the absolute view we already are (assuming mechanism). Sure, virtual is like natural, I'm not sure it means anything. In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can access, those where we keep our memories, and those where we don't. Both are infinite in numbers, but have different relative measure. Apparently (salvia reports) we can abandon all memories, and then retrieve them. How can we be sure we retrieve the correct
