you guys should check out
Dark City (has a platonic reality isn't really real thing going on)
Moon (has a memory/identity/AI thing going on)
Source Code (has a 'its just numbers being computed' thing going on)
Tarkovsky's Solaris and Stalker are also pretty stunning if you can handle 10
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did not
comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named
Chris.
I think Clark should elaborate
Hi Quentin
I do not, valid critics are valid,
By definition mate.
but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he
maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does
not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's
Hi Bruno
Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only him
That's a good way of spinning the fact that for two years it is in reality you
who has failed to convince him.
All the best
Chris
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Hi Liz
Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and
can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps
simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that
duplication is possible.
my objections were to do with the
how can facts exist that are not grounded in observation at some point?
Russell and Liz are wandering around the countryside and Liz points at the
ground and says:
there's a gold coin buried right there.
Russell says:
no there isn't
They both walk on without looking. And in the subsequent
Hi Quentin
They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked. So I'll
try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with simple yes/no questions and
explanation from your part.
So I will first describe the setup and will suppose for the argument that what
we will do
Hi Liz
Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter
transmitter sends you to another solar system where you will live out
the reminder of your life. Maybe you committed some crime and this is
the consequence, to be transported :) A malfunction causes you
to be duplicated and sent to both
Hi Bruno
By and large you didn't get my response to Quentin and largely the comments you
made didn't actually address the comments I was making, or the questions I was
asking Quentin. It seems more as if you were addressing comments you hoped I
was making but didn't. With respect then I've
+1100
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
system A is 1. I
Hi Liz
Let's also suppose you don't know which solar system you will be sent to,
and that in fact the matter transmitter is supposed to send you to A or B
with equal probability based on some quantum coin flip. But by accident it
duplicates you, and sends you to both. This effectively
Hi Quentin
then I can't see how you could still agree with many world interpretation
and reject probability, that's not consistent... unless of course, you
reject MWI.
I definitely wouldn't say I accept MWI. But even so, not everyone who does
accept it agrees that there is subjective
views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
This is the same as saying
frequencies of me seeing ups and downs but
not probabilities of seeing up or down.
All the best
Chris.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:30:48 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 February 2014 13:05, chris peck
Hi Quentin
That's nonsense,
The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less
about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the
same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just
discovered that there are.
Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
That's nonsense,
The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less
about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford
Hi Liz
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has
been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for
identity over time?
With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has
been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views.
There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these.
She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect
(with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite.
But, If she had of said that you'd both be
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1
)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Liz
I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume
there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your
physical structure. Which we
Hi Edgar
It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by
quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be
no deterministic rules for aligning
separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those
alignments randomly.
Far out, man!
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014
If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote
down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the
sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring
about 50% of the time.
There's something strikes me as very
On 3/2/2014 11:36 PM, chris peck wrote:
If you repeated the cloning experiment
from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number
each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of
zeros and ones you'd written looked random
Hi Liz
0001 0010 0011 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1010
1011 1100 1101 1110
Of which I'm fairly sure half the digits are 0 and half 1!
What am I missing here?
If you concatenate all those strings together you'll get a bigger string in
which the proportion of
Hi Liz
I'm not sure I follow.
Me neither.
wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that
the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros
occurring about 50% of the time.
there would be no 'about' it were your interpretation right, Liz.
converge to 1/2 in probability. This is exactly
the way prediction of probabilities are evaluated experimentally.
It is irrelevant that the proportion of subsequences that have
exactly equally 1s and 0s goes down.
Brent
On 3/3/2014 8:32 PM, chris
Hi Jason/Gabriel
Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a
mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments, to
think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common.
I do maintain that proportions of roughly 50/50 splits are a
Hi Bruno
The question is: can you refute this.
To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not. Though
perhaps you have an ideological agenda and are just trying very hard not to be
refuted?
And for the UDA, you don't need the 50%. You need only to assess the
Hi Bruno
Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective
uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are
mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction
of
Hi Bruno
ou cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme. You
must say at which step rigor is lacking.
I think you're missing the fact that I was poking fun at a comment you made to
Liz. Don't worry about it.
You make vague negative proposition containing precise
Hi Bruno
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise:
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.
So, she should
Hi Bruno
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different
vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise:
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of
Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy
Cool. Rockin' All
-
Enthusiastically attack butter (4)
...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were
McLaren's boy band really.
PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris
basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts
.
PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something
was
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:21:52 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:49:01 PM UTC, chris peck wrote:
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod
It depends, sometimes yes... But at other times thought provoking gloom can
be fun, while light, non-gloom fun can seem cheap and pandering. Just
depends on situation. Right now, I don't know if what I'm listening to is
light or gloomy and thought provoking. It has a minimal sort of machine
Hi Bruno
But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a
maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent
with the FPI, without naming it.
Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept
that. I mean personally, I would argue
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic
about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other
interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would
make you less ill
I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
different mathematical structures, all of which are in Borges
Library of Babel. Almost all of them are just lists of what
happens. Scott's point is
consequences such as
'immortality'. We're want something that can be measured.
From: stath...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:12:09 +1100
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote
It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you actually live
forever.
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one thing it
isn't is significant.
The continuation of an experiential history on some other earth, a history
common to the one that just
stand point they simply do not exist relative to one another.
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:25:11 +1300
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 26 March 2014 16:22, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty
The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into
withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels.
That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent
that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy
as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as
vica versa.
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:51:34 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote
On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote:
Brent
If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change,
that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims
they actually make.
So does
you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue.
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
, to the UN?
What is the remediation for this problem and how long will it take to
implement?
-Original Message-
From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 7:08 pm
Subject: RE: If you can't disprove the science
looking at the instruments and using their best theories to interpret the
readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some psychological reason,
e.g. because they all adhere to some paradigm - are talking bollocks.
On 7 April 2014 14:56, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote
Oh, when it suits your prejudice
it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer need to read the
papers and decide for yourself.
Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.
There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and
you're
10:13:44 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:
Oh,
when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count
suing
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:09PM +, chris peck wrote:
To see if various denier criticisms were valid.
So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by default and
only read those papers which have criticisms leveled at them by deniers?
That isn't very even
. This latest row was trigger by
nothing more controversial than that.
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:18:34 +1000
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +, chris peck
', then it is a
fallacy. Things are not true because people believe them right?
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:59:53 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 9 April 2014 12:51, chris peck chris_peck
A question Roger:
To recap:
there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or God) that
perceives and acts, doing this through the Surpreme (most dominant) monad.
It perceives the whole universe with perfect clarity.
Only it can perceive and act . the Supreme Monad continually and
This is a theorem, once we suppose the mind is Turing emulable.
not actually a theorem if we don't, tho' ?
More to the point, it might well be that materialism IS a joke. But Roger's
attempt to show this is no closer to the mark than Dr. Johnson kicking his
stone was to disproving idealism.
l think the angst has more to do with concerns about state power than it has to
do with an emergent super brain controlling my noodle with monadic fairy dust,
Roger.
perhaps the materialists can devise an equivalent explanation of a global
mind...
Im guessing here but l think they'll stick
Hi Rog
As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both
rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If
reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be
combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological
--- Original Message ---
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Sent: 22 June 2013 11:26 AM
To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Subject: Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is
matter.
Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is
Hi Roger
So long as Im not a hapless monad subjected to an influx of incomplete and
distorted 'percepts' via a supreme monad, I'm more than happy to be a Zombie. I
might be dead but at least I'm not deluded and neither one of us has much of a
claim on having free will. Moreover, being a zombie
Hi Roger
This boggles my mind. I am purely matter. ?
Should be: This boggles my mind. I am not I.
regards.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:22:11 +0200
Hi Roger,
I was searching for my Vasubandhu
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. If
someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God.
--- Original Message ---
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re:
Subject: Re: Hitch
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
belive in God.
But you don't know what God the atheist
-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
If some one says look, cat I don't know what kind of cat they are refering
to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something
I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me:
I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide
with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics
continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should
Hello everyone
I just want to post a message of thanks for the replies you have all given
me. It really is appreciated whether for or against the proposition.
by 'eck you're a brainy lot!
thank you all very much.
Chris.
_
Rate
cheers Bruno. :)
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Penrose and algorithms
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 18:40:50 +0200
Hi Chris,
Le 09-juin-07, à 13:03, chris peck a écrit :
Hello
The time has come again when I need to seek
To Jason:
Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even
realizing it has done so.
How can you possibly speak for atheists generally in this regard? Particularly
after the arguments you have been making! What do you know of all the
possibilities they have entertained
Hi Roger
hmmm. sort of. Lowering interest rates, creating cheap money, in part
encouraged banks to lend to people they ordinarily would not have. This put
more buyers on the market and that increase in demand led to a rise in house
prices. Of course, when the interest rates went up, those
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:22:49 +0200
On 16 Jul 2013, at 16:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:09 AM, chris peck
chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Roger
hmmm. sort of. Lowering interest rates, creating cheap money, in part
encouraged banks to lend to people
any hint of it.
I feel like banging my head with a bible.
From: jasonre...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: We are all naturally racists. Political correctness is likely to
get you killed.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:37:49 -0500
On Jul 17, 2013, at 5:21 PM, chris
Hi Alberto
I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin
based alphabets?
--- Original Message ---
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
the
associations.
2013/7/19 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Hi Alberto
I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin
based alphabets?
--- Original Message ---
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
@ Telmo
Hi Telmo
The key word here is leveraged. Ultimately, this level of leveraging
is only possible because the Fed can create money out of thin air.
You'll have to elaborate on that. As far as I am aware the banks were leveraged
by money currently in circulation. Loans made by insurance
, most of them, scripting systems have not to be
alphabetic nor phonetic, can be ideographic, like chiness in which case it is
meaningless to associate )
2013/7/19 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Hi Alberto
But alphabets are not phonemic are they? And some alphabets are curvy (Thai
Thanks Telmo
That sheds a little more light on where
you're coming from. I watched those videos with interest and found
the Austrian school fascinating. Apologies in advance for the length
of this post and for the howling errors in reasoning it undoubtedly
contains. I’m just a beginner!
So
Hi Rog
I'm getting the feeling here, that you're not a liberal... is that right?
:)
From: rclo...@verizon.net
To: rclo...@verizon.net
Subject: Whistleblower: Bradley Manning
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:31:38 -0400
Message body
Whistleblower: Bradley Manning
Manning could have done himself a
Weird, because DDT isn't banned when used for disease vector control, which
kind of scuppers your post at the get go.
Its well established that insects quickly develop resistance to DDT. So it
isn't especially effective. In some respects its counter productive. The
resistance confers other
Hi Alberto
A video of one man questioning Carson's conclusions doesnt support the claim
she fabricated evidence. All it does is show that some scientists disagree with
her results. Not unusual in science. Of course sceptics will argue
evironmentalism is politicised science. Given that most of
Yep. He was.
--- Original Message ---
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 3 August 2013 2:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The stupid legacy of another crackpot, Roger Clough
On 8/2/2013 5:27 PM, chris peck wrote:
By the way, Michael Crichton, the man whose video
Hi Alby
Roger is pro-drugs in the thread below you dozy dipstick. ;)
Its the liberal who is arguing for soft headed psycotherapy. its the
pharmaceutical company vs. The lilly livered liberal script.
Get with the program you silly sausage!
--- Original Message ---
From: Alberto G. Corona
Hello Dr. Standish
If I may play devil's advocate for a post it seems to me that the question over
duration required for an optimized system to evolve is only a minor aspect of
the argument presented in this paper.
More seriously it concerns the mechanics of such an evolution.
To use a
Hi Prof. Standish
Unfortunately my subscription to Athens ran out a long time ago and I don't
have access to the paper you mention.
I'm still not sure you've addressed the crux of the argument. Lets say you have
a bunch of codons that when processed by a replicating mechanism spit out a
it is a defunct research programme, but maybe you could
follow up citations.
I could probably dig out an e-copy of the ECAL paper from my
institution's Springerlink subscription, if you're really interested.
Further comments interspersed
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:03:36AM +, chris peck wrote
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Prof. Standish
Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a link
in the
original springer resource you posted. Some of it flies over my head
Hi Chris and John
The paper I linked to describes a evolutionary dynamic which emphasizes
horizontal over vertical genetic transfer. I think it is described in the paper
as Lamarckian because changes to the coding mechanism can occur in their model
within a single generation of organisms
I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
From: yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from posting in the
Hi Chris d m
The papers Ive been reading regard horizontal genetic transfer as a mechanism
by which the machinery of translation, transcription and replication evolved.
As cellular organisms became more complex this mechanism gives way to vertical
genetic transfer which then dominates
Hi Prof. Standish
I read your paper 'Evolution in the Multiverse' and the related discussion in
your book.
I'm not sure I really got it. My original interpretation was wrong, I think,
but went something like (by all means laugh at any howlers):
there is the plenitude which is everything that
group dynamics thus helping to lower
transactional costs perhaps.
Cheers,
-Chris D
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof
Hi Chris
You assume the dog acted with a premeditated anticipation of a reward.
No I really don't. I was just being a little light hearted in that paragraph.
There is a disjunct between the reasons the dog does something and the effect
the behavior has on genes. The dog may just love
Hi Chris
Increasingly code is the result of genetic algorithms being run over many
generations of Darwinian selection -- is this programmed code? What human
hand wrote it? At how many removes?
In evolutionary computations the 'programmer' has control over the fitness
function which ultimately
The sad fact is that without Hitler, the West would still be a colonial
power committing human rights abuses on a unimaginable scale.
I suppose we should expect multiverse theorists to present as fact
counterfactual histories which can't be falsified.
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:49:59 -0700
A rapid descent into extremism can be caused by factors such as
economic desperation. However, you can also have a gradual change in
society and then people are always indioctrinated that their current
norms and values are correct.
Of course we regard our norms and values as correct. They are
Hi Brent
But I don't think this is just a moral evolution. I think it is driven by
technology. As societies become richer they become less competitive and
insular and more compassionate and open.
I agree. I think trade imparticularly creates a symbiotic relationship between
people which
Hi Craig
am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible
under strong determinism. Deterministic and random processes cannot
possibly produce desire - not because desire is special, but because it
doesn't make any sense. You
are talking about putting in a gas pedal on a bowling ball.
I
...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:01:35 +1000
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 22 August 2013 13:20, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Craig
am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible under strong
determinism
in a lot of life forms we can study.Thanks
for the interesting thread,Chris From: everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:20 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade Hi Craig
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
