Magical Thinking

[freqflyer07281972]

Hello everyone,

I don't post here very often, but I read your posts every day via nabble 
(it is just easier to load responses on the mobile device). 

I also don't usually have much to contribute, but I'd like to contribute 
something today.

After reviewing and re-reviewing all of the stuff that Bruno says about the 
8 hypostases and all the arcane logical symbols 
that are presented, and getting into the idea that we are really all the 
same person just trying out different personalities/persons in 
the mathematical multiverse (as guaranteed by the AUDA? ADA?) -- isn't this 
just a whole load of magical thinking? Like we 
have formed a model where it seems like this is true, so therefore it must 
be true? 

>From personal experience, I can tell you, I've never seen the following 
spring from the ADA/AUDA:

a baby
a grasshopper
some grass
a tree
a person (complete with my memories except for that time i wet myself in 
grade 2)
a galaxy
a bank
a government

It's all a lot of handwaving, as far as I'm concerned. And while I really 
love reading your back
and forths about the peculiar details of the AUDA/ADA, I still don't see 
one possible way in which 
such formal, dessicated, circumscribed reasoning could ever lead to the 
actual, joyous, and unboundedly
infinite reality we have facing us every day. I'm sure I've missed 
something (yah, some of you will say 
I've missed everything, but whatever)... but what we have going on here on 
this list, it seems is a paradox:

The paradox of romanticism meeting classicism. 
The paradox of number meeting form or geometry. 
The paradox of mind meeting matter. 



The problem seems like there is this self-satisfaction on the part of Bruno 
that there are merely some "hypotheses" about 
machine psychology (whatever the hell that means) and a consistent working 
out of the CTM to ensure we are such beings, 
by following the (really awfully impractical and impossible to implement) 
thought experiment of being in a duplicating chamber.

Well, guess what? There are no duplicating chambers! Never have been, and 
never will be. 
It's just like conceiving a time travel machine (also impossible).

When Einstein thought up his thought experiments, he didn't start with 
premises that were inherently impossible to fulfill. 
After all, we can all imagine accelerating up to some arbitrary limit. 

Similarly, with quantum physics, we can all imagine (and in fact can do in 
practice) the dual slit experiment. We can even 
(if we are sadists) carry out the Schrodinger experiment, and determine 
either a live or dead cat (we won't see both, according to
the formalism, but that is to be expected). 

But thought experiments have their limit. If one of your basic premises is 
that "I have here, in my possession, a 
machine that will duplicate you entirely and completely without fail up to 
a basic substitution level", and yet you can't 
build such a machine, nor even conceive of how to go about building one, 
with no practical plans or ideas as a guideline, 
then I would have to say, before I even begin going down the long and 
tortuous road of inference such a situation involves 
a willing subject in, STOP, THANK YOU, you've taught me precisely nothing. 

This is just like hypothesizing a time machine where one can go back to 
alter the course of WW2 and make Hitler a 
painter and then basically just make everything as though WW2 never 
happened. 

Can I hypothesize a machine that might do that? YES
Can I create a bunch of formal logical rules where such an intervention 
could be both possible and consistent? YES 
Does it mean I should now start believing that Hitler was a painter and 
that World War 2 never happened? NO

There is a massive gulf between purely formal proof in symbols and what 
actually happens in the world. 
This list is (thanks to Bruno's help) dedicated to the NONSENSE that, by 
writing a few formal symbols 
down, one has therefore explained it all. It's pernicious. And blind. 

And I've never done salvia, but I have done acid, and I had an experience 
during it where I really felt I was the universe itself. 
But I don't thing any string of symbols would have convinced me one way or 
another as to whether I had an actual 
encounter with the noumenon or else just had a deep and intense trip. 

This everything stuff based on Bruno's "8 hypostases" (or 7, or 9) is a 
bunch of magical horseshit at a level that is too high for most people 
to see through. That's why it still gets play... no one can call the 
emperor for having no clothes.

Just go and pet a dog or cat, or smell some flowers,  and tell me that is 
just a bunch of equations. 

There is something sorely lacking in this approach to an everything theory. 
  

That's all I've got. I'm sure those who want to will beat up on me, I don't 
mind. 

Plus, this list needed livening.

Peace

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this 

Re: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

I looked up Norm Levitt in Wikipedia -- the entry is rather sketchy. Do you 
have any links or biblio entries I can follow up on? From what I did read 
of him (opposing "new left" academic silliness) I am intrigued to find out 
more.

On Friday, May 16, 2014 7:05:59 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb > wrote:
>
>>  On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>  
>> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you 
>> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful? 
>>  
>>
>>  Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive at 
>> something useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late 
>> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? 
>> NOTHING!"
>>  
>
>  Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - 
> Which is EVERYTHING!
>
>  I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I 
> assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies 
> that of course).
>   
>
> I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM.
>
> 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.

Re: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you think 
it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful? 

In the article, Kauffman seems to telegraph right at the beginning that 
everything that will follow is an exercise in deception, thanks to the old 
Taoistic chestnut that "the Void, when named, is not the Void." And yet, 
formal reasoning seems to lead us to some kind of meaningful conclusions 
about it regardless. 



On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:53:38 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 5/15/2014 9:30 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>  
> I don't get it. Please explain? 
>
> Are you making a joke, something on the order of "both of these guys are 
> spouting such metaphysical hogwash that the debate between them would be an 
> even bigger yawnfest than their articles in particular"? 
>
>
> It was a tongue in cheek remark. I wouldn't say Kauffmann is spouting 
> hogwash, though Craig certainly does.  But there's a symmetry of style.  
> Both draw deep conclusions from just words...but not compatible conclusions.
>
> Brent
>
>  Or is it some specific aspect of what each of them profess to believe? I 
> know that Craig is a theologian who argues in favor of the Kalam 
> cosmological argument for god's existence. I submitted the link to the 
> Kauffman article just because it seemed to be talking about a lot of the 
> stuff that is frequently discussed here, but doesn't appear to grind any 
> particular theological axe. So I don't really see the connection you are 
> making (or the irony/humor/sarcasm you might/might not have intended). 
>
>  
>>
>> I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate. 
>>
>> 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-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-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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

I don't get it. Please explain? 

Are you making a joke, something on the order of "both of these guys are 
spouting such metaphysical hogwash that the debate between them would be an 
even bigger yawnfest than their articles in particular"? Or is it some 
specific aspect of what each of them profess to believe? I know that Craig 
is a theologian who argues in favor of the Kalam cosmological argument for 
god's existence. I submitted the link to the Kauffman article just because 
it seemed to be talking about a lot of the stuff that is frequently 
discussed here, but doesn't appear to grind any particular theological axe. 
So I don't really see the connection you are making (or the 
irony/humor/sarcasm you might/might not have intended). 


>
> I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate. 
>
> 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.

Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

A fun little article I came across that I thought everyone here might 
appreciate:

http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/vol7/kauffman_7-4.pdf

Thoughts? Objections? 

-- 
You received this message because you are 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: Films I think people on this forum might like

[freqflyer07281972]

I've been following this thread with some interest, waiting for one movie 
to be invariably mentioned among this crowd, and surprised that it hasn't 
been yet: "Waking Life" by Richard Linklater. 

Not only would members of this list like this movie, they would also be 
reminded of the different kinds of conversations that go on here. It could 
even be interpreted as a kind of visualization of the QIT. The only person 
on this list who might not like it is John Clarke, since it is filled with 
references to so many useless, deadbeat, unproductive and non-contributing 
philosophers and one of the many pre-occupations of the film is that 
utterly meaningless ASCII sequence/noise "free will" (blech, I threw up a 
bit in my mouth just typing those nine characters, that's how abhorrent and 
senseless the notion is). Also, it is a cartoon, and I'm pretty sure he 
would have stopped watching anything so stupid since Grade 6, or when he 
was 12, or something. And most importantly, it didn't win any awards and 
was not on anyone's top ten list, at least, not anyone who counts as having 
valuable opinions about quality movies. But for the rest of you, I strongly 
recommend you check it out!


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

I totally agree with you that science, when you really start getting into 
the implications of things like QM (and relativity for that matter), 
provides some rather unsettling (and yet very exciting!) conclusions. And 
yet... they always rest on the tip of uncertainty. Either that, or else the 
conclusions are so terrible that I can't bear to think of them. 

Like, for example, you mention the idea of "universalism," the idea that 
all minds are fundamentally connected. This has always been a very strong 
intuition with me ever since I had a "religious conversion" type experience 
in my teens. Finding this list was a wonderful moment, because it appeared 
that the implications of comp reinforced this intuition. BUT... on the 
other hand, ethically, I hate the idea that my mind and the mind of, say, 
Josef Stalin, are linked in any way, and the more I learn about the 
enormity of various acts of evil and violence, the more I feel OK with the 
idea that maybe death qua oblivion really isn't such a bad thing after all, 
but is instead a kind of mercy that is bestowed upon us. 

I guess I just have some trouble squaring my metaphysical curiosities (that 
tend to pull me way out into the stratosphere) with my ethical demands and 
expectations (that tend to reign in my speculations). 

Do I make any sense?
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:55:27 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> There is a "glass half empty" and "glass half full" way of looking at it. 
> It may be that every time you get on a plane, you are certain in some 
> fraction of resulting future states, to experience it crashing. But you are 
> also guaranteed (and in a much larger fraction) to make it safely. When 
> someone dies, especially a young person dies, what makes it so tragic is 
> the unrealized potential, the experiences they never got to have or make. 
> But under many-worlds, that potential is realized, and those experience are 
> had, only in other branches. Consider that in many branches, each of us has 
> died  at times where we were younger than we are now, and certainly our 
> family in other branches would have mourned what they perceived as your 
> death. But you are alive, here and now, despite their opinion.
>
> I think science seems depressing only on the surface, when one doesn't try 
> to explore the implications of all the theories to their logical ends.  
> Quantum immortality may seem to imply the horrible fate of aging forever, 
> but this ignores the implications of the computational theory of mind, the 
> simulation argument, universalism, etc. Though the odds that we exist in a 
> computer simulation might be high or might be low, certainly it seems the 
> odds are higher than living to 200 years without some form of intervention. 
> So in many of the possible continuations where your "physical" life ends, 
> at say a normal age, your life continues in the virtual world in which some 
> being chose to live as you, in a "game world". This implies a type of after 
> life not unlike those in various religions, where you can take your 
> memories with you and you can reunite with others with whom you crossed 
> paths in the previous life.
>
> Just from arithmetical realism, there exist ultra-intelligent, god-like 
> minds with access to unlimited computational power. For all intents and 
> purposes they are "Gods", with the power to explore the rest of reality, 
> and even copy and paste beings from other "physical universes" into its own 
> realm. Perhaps out of good-will, for introducing suffering as a process of 
> simulating physical worlds with conscious life in them, it extends an 
> after-life of its choice to the beings instantiated in the course of that 
> simulation. This may be an outlandish speculation, but it follows directly 
> from arithmetical realism, programs that do exactly this exist already.
>
> Finally, with universalism (the only theory of personal identity that does 
> not fail in the face of the overwhelming probability against you ever being 
> born in the first place), we can realize that all conscious moments equally 
> belong to us all. There will never be a moment that you are not alive so 
> long as there is life, somewhere, anywhere. In that sense, we are each of 
> the universal soul, though most of us have forgotten our true nature. But 
> since our consciousness continues forever, we are all on a path that will 
> eventually lead home again. Until we decide to jump back in and do it all 
> over again.  (Not unlike Lila 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_%28Hinduism%29 )
>
> I think our current theories lead us back to various ideas most would say 
> belong exclusively to religion, such as: eternal life, immortality, 
> reincarnation, resurrection and afterlives, a self existent ground of all 
> being, a universal soul, and divine union. Perhaps all of these ideas is 
> wrong, but each one is supported by one or more separate scientific 
> theories, many of them being well-established.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

Thank you for posting that link... I really enjoyed reading your blog post! 
It captured well many of the thoughts I have had about the whole shebang. 

And sorry to hear that your hero died... I've never heard of John Galbraith 
Graham before, but learning about him has inspired me to try to do a 
crossword or two... even though I suck pretty bad at difficult ones, and am 
hopeless with the cryptic variety. 

Peace,

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:04:21 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> I hesitate to post a link to this , 
> which I wrote when young and foolish back in 2011...
>
> I have just had the experience we are talking about. I just this minute 
> learned that one of my 
> heroeshas
>  died.
>
> Damn.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the 
> internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a 
> line. I think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own 
> heart and ask yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly wart in your own 
> character… one that if I were you I would be trying to understand and work 
> through.
>
> Chris
>
>  
>
Just for the record:

a) I apologized (on a new thread so I wouldn't "derail" this one)

b) I didn't have to "troll the internet" very far to find his lonely hearts 
advert -- it's on the front page of google after you search edgar owen -- 
second entry -- I was just trying to find more information about this book 
on reality he keeps talking about, but his blog is the second entry in the 
search, and the advert is the very first thing you see when you go to the 
site -- hardly private details... indeed, given his clearly narcissistic 
posture, I thought he would be quite flattered anyone took that level of 
interest in him. 

c) Ugly wart on my character? You think I am not aware that I have warts on 
my character? Dude, I got tons of 'em, all over the damn place... I think 
anyone who is honest with themselves will also find them. Oh yah, no doubt 
it exposes an ugly wart on my character. I only wish other people would be 
equally honest in their self-assessments (lookin' at you, Edgar) and take 
the time to perhaps "try to understand and work through" their ugly warts, 
i.e. condescension, truculence,  delusion. For me, it's a constant and 
daily struggle, but I never stop working at it... I admit that I backslide 
a bit and do some dumb stuff though, and looking back, I realize that 
posting that thing from Edgar's site was not a decent thing to do -- I 
fully accept your condemnation and repent. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

>
>
> Unless I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together, of 
> course.
>
>
Well, that's just it, isn't it? :-) Or indeed, if all of this "self" stuff 
is really a very sophisticated mental model we run... 

I've tried making that claim here before, but the response if I recall was 
a repetition of the Cartesian dictum, and I didn't pursue it.  

If the self does not and/or never has existed in the first place, then 
there is no point in mourning its loss, because it quite literally doesn't 
"go anywhere." Still, without having that deep conviction, not sure how it 
offers succor. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

Alberto, 

Thanks for your thoughts on this issue. They make a lot of sense and I 
agree for the most part. 

For example, the "adolescent sense of superiority" that comes with thinking 
you've got it all figured out is something that I myself have experienced 
(at times in my life when I thought I had it all worked out)... trouble is, 
that superiority can never be maintained for long if you are truly honest 
with yourself and you examine your own personal assumptions and prejudices 
repeatedly in a cold and objective light. This is where former certainty 
motivated by fresh experience becomes ossified dogma motivated out of fear. 

I also really appreciate your apparent awareness of the historical 
contingency of a lot of TOE's and the limits of our vision. Thanks for your 
response!
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:05:07 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> " I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good faith: what is 
> the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these theories? 
> Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where "Everything 
> exists" and the self is simply a computation on a deeper eternal 
> substrate and where time is an illusion? Indeed, isn't the whole 
> humanistic, existentialist "point" of these theories to offer us a bit 
> of succor in the face of inevitable death? " 
>
> These theories offer no relief except a vague and adolescent sense of 
> superiority, typical of any cult where there are people who  "know" 
> and people who don't. But once you reject this adolescent smug and 
> grow your conscience of ignorance and despise the false comfort of 
> being in a elite of connaiseurs, then these theories become 
> depressing. Moreover they are probably wrong, guesses from 
> extrapolations of some local principles that may not work out of our 
> of our inmediate reality.  like "less principles are better than 
> more", or "less complex is better than more complex". I`m talking 
> about the Multiverse theories or comp.  Or the thermodynamic end of 
> the Universe. 
>
> I personally have nightmares thinking about other "me" that die in 
> accident in another paralell universe. Or thinking about my daughter 
> suffering the same fate in some metaworld far far away.  I know that 
> this is crazy, but your mind and mine extract lessons from what you 
> accept as theoretically possible. There is a theory that says that 
> dreams are training scenes that the mind produce to make you 
> accustomed to what may happen  the next day. 
>
> That is unavoidable. Your assumptions influence all your life in very 
> important ways. I mean all your life. The comic part is that in twenty 
> of fifty years, like has happened before with the theories of the 
> past,  these theories will be looked at as outdated speculations 
> driven by old ideas that will be no longer in fashion, like the 
> exagerated worship to computers or to a certain metaphisical 
> assumptions. 
>
> So my advice to myself is: Play with this crap, but don't take it 
> seriously. Since you CAN NOT know and will not know first causes never 
> ever. Therefore all is a matter and belief.. So  damn you, believe in 
> something that offer a good teleology, at least compatible with the 
> human psychology, or else, if you and your people take these suicide 
> ad depressing theories you will have a bad life and your people will 
> be driven to irrelevance (and, believe me, we are in this personal and 
> social  path to oblivion as individuals and as a civilization). 
>
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

What on god's green earth are you talking about, man?

Jeez, ya hold out an olive branch, and ya just get more of the same. Sheesh.

Edgar, you are now officially on my pay no mind list...


On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:39:43 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> Wow, do we have some really superstitious members here! I wouldn't have 
> expected that on a science list.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:14:24 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz, (and Dan)
>>>
>>> When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be 
>>> comforting, but it's just superstition..
>>>
>>
>> Can't you make *any *argument using logic, rather than just having a go 
>> at the other person's perceived motivations? To believe otherwise may be 
>> comforting and may be superstition, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. 
>> You should study logical forms sometime.
>>
>>>
>>> There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. 
>>>
>>
>> If I thought for a moment you could back that up with any reasoned 
>> argument, I would ask you to provide 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one extent or 
another. I'm also curious as to your reaction regarding the status of 
"questions" versus "answers":

http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park



On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:19:39 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> This, after he has already agreed that he would say "yes" to the doctor. 
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
>> On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>>
>>> Liz, (and Dan)
>>>
>>> When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be 
>>> comforting, but it's just superstition..
>>>
>>
>> Can't you make *any *argument using logic, rather than just having a go 
>> at the other person's perceived motivations? To believe otherwise may be 
>> comforting and may be superstition, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. 
>> You should study logical forms sometime.
>>
>>>
>>> There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. 
>>>
>>
>> If I thought for a moment you could back that up with any reasoned 
>> argument, I would ask you to provide 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousness

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey Craig!

I watched the video... very cool!

Questions:

1) Who is the user of the interface? What is "us"?

2) What is the interface representing? Hoffman uses the analogy of the file 
and the trash bin icons on the desktop. In a computer, I know that the file 
ultimately represents binary values that are encoded on a physical portion 
of my hard disk. The values themselves are voltage potentials that are 
sustained in a persistent way thanks to the laws of quantum physics (aside: 
jeez, who would have thought such a "random" theory could provide such 
stability at the macroscopic level?) and are interpreted by a human user. 
What is the analogue of the voltage potentials in the interface theory? 

Cheers,

Dan

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:31:56 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of 
> Consciousness
>
> A very good presentation with lot of overlap on my views. He proposes 
> similar ideas about a sensory-motive primitive and the nature of the world 
> as experience rather than “objective”. What is not factored in is the 
> relation between local and remote experiences and how that relation 
> actually defines the appearance of that relation. Instead of seeing agents 
> as isolated mechanisms, I think they should be seen as more like breaches 
> in the fabric of insensitivity.
>
> It is a little misleading to say (near the end) that a spoon is no more 
> public than a headache. In my view what makes a spoon different from a 
> headache is precisely that the metal is more public than the private 
> experience of a headache. If we make the mistake of assuming an Absolutely 
> public perspective*, then yes, the spoon is not in it, because the spoon is 
> different things depending on how small, large, fast, or slow you are. For 
> the same reason, however, nothing can be said to be in such a perspective. 
> There is no experience of the world which does not originate through the 
> relativity of experience itself. Of course the spoon is more public than a 
> headache, in our experience. To think otherwise as a literal truth would be 
> psychotic or solipsistic. In the Absolute sense, sure, the spoon is a 
> sensory phenomena and nothing else, it is not purely public (nothing is), 
> but locally, is certainly is ‘more’ public.
>
> Something that he mentioned in the presentation had to do with linear 
> algebra and using a matrix of columns which add up to be one. To really 
> jump off into a new level of understanding consciousness, I would think of 
> the totality of experience as something like a matrix of columns which add 
> up, not to 1, but to “=1″. Adding up to 1 is a good enough starting point, 
> as it allows us to think of agents as holes which feel separate on one side 
> and united on the other. Thinking of it as “=1″ instead makes it into a 
> portable unity that does something. Each hole recapitulates the totality as 
> well as its own relation to that recapitulation: ‘just like’ unity. From 
> there, the door is open to universal metaphor and local contrasts of degree 
> and kind.
>
> *mathematics invites to do this, because it inverts the naming function of 
> language. Instead of describing a phenomenon in our experience through a 
> common sense of language, math enumerates relationships between theories 
> about experience. The difference is that language can either project itself 
> publicly or integrate public-facing experiences privately, but math is a 
> language which can only face itself. Through math, reflections of 
> experience are fragmented and re-assembled into an ideal rationality – the 
> ideal rationality which reflects the very ideal of rationality that it 
> embodies.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

So, just to run with this for a few moments (which will be lost in time, 
like tears in rain... ;-)


... if it is obvious to Edgar that everything he says is true, for example 
the claim that:


"When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be 
comforting, but it's just superstition.There must be a living human body to 
produce a human consciousness. "

... but many other (highly educated, scientific, philosophical) human 
beings disagree that it is obvious and/or can't see what is plainly 
apparent to only one of them, what should that single person who has (by 
some miracle of the universe) been given privileged access to the 
unvarnished truth of the universe do about it?  Should they:

a) call people who disagree with them "too stupid to get it"
b) revise their beliefs concerning the "obvious" nature of the truth they 
think they possess
c) suspect on the basis of the responses they are getting from otherwise 
intelligent people that perhaps their unique insight is in error
d) ignore all claims to the contrary and persist in their beliefs
e) patiently re-explain, in a different way, using different analogies, the 
substance of their claim and
f) be willing to revise their beliefs on the basis of what others tell 
them, assuming they do not have an overexaggerated confidence in their own 
ability to discern the truth 

These are not mutually exclusive options. 

It seems to me Edgar has done a lot of option "a" and option "d" -- "e" has 
not been used because no analogies, thought experiments, or formal 
apparatus has been offered for honest inspection- merely a series of 
re-assertions that "it is quite obvious that X, and I don't understand why 
no one else gets it" -- the rest of the options are also not evident. 

I'd be interested to get some feedback on this question, as I think 
self-delusion and self-deception are germane to any discussion of 
"Everything theories", and this is also why it is the domain of so many 
cranks. 

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:32:28 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014/1/15 freqflyer07281972 >
>
>> On what authority do you make such claims? 
>>
>
> Isn't it obvious ? His own, it is so obviously obvious, it's a shame^Wjoke 
> you didn't obviously register so obvious.
>
> Quentin
>
>  
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Liz, (and Dan)
>>>
>>> When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be 
>>> comforting, but it's just superstition..
>>>
>>> There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. 
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or 
>>>> blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would 
>>>> certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than 
>>>> clear.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never 
>>>> mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to 
>>>> my 
>>>> questions when  he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't 
>>>> answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding 
>>>> questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't 
>>>> get 
>>>> me or any of us anywhere.)
>>>>
>>>> On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is 
>>>> that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is 
>>>> that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was 
>>>> murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. 
>>>> Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive 
>>>> and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't 
>>>> know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

On what authority do you make such claims? 

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz, (and Dan)
>
> When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be 
> comforting, but it's just superstition..
>
> There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. 
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or 
>> blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would 
>> certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than 
>> clear.
>>
>> I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never 
>> mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my 
>> questions when  he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't 
>> answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding 
>> questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get 
>> me or any of us anywhere.)
>>
>> On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is 
>> that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is 
>> that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was 
>> murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. 
>> Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive 
>> and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't 
>> know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

Wow, Liz, very sorry to hear about your friend. If you don't mind me asking 
(and if you do mind, simply ignore my question), if you magically just knew 
that the universe was in fact a large computation engine where all 
possibilities are eventually played out, and also entailing some form of 
QTI, would this provide any comfort to you at all? 

As far as I understand Bruno's UD, (and I'm really still not sure I 
understand it, despite lurking here for years and reading old posts) a 
consequence of being embedding in the universal computational structure as 
a machine is the fact that we cannot ever prove the correctness of our 
beliefs because our consistency is only relative to the part of the 
universal function we inhabit, and there could be other domains of 
computation where our beliefs would turn out to be false. Of course, what I 
just said could also be a load of gobbledygook because, as I admitted, I 
don't fully understand the entire argument, nor do I really grasp what the 
conclusion of the argument is supposed to be, nor do I really even 
understand what kind of ethical import any TOE could have on our behaviors 
here in the local domain. 



On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or 
> blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would 
> certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than 
> clear.
>
> I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never 
> mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my 
> questions when  he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't 
> answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding 
> questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get 
> me or any of us anywhere.)
>
> On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is 
> that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is 
> that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was 
> murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. 
> Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive 
> and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't 
> know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

Fair enough, I retract "repeatedly posted links to his personal website"... 

I guess, in my mind, it just seemed like you repeatedly posted links to 
your website, because it always seems like you end up talking about 
yourself and your book, and not about the ideas you have, and when you do 
talk about the ideas you have, you provide such flimsy justifications for 
them and they are repeatedly and decisively refuted by people on this list, 
but you don't ever seem to acknowledge this or engage debate honestly or in 
good faith. 

So, ya, it only seemed like you posted to your personal blog repeatedly 
because you do very frequently talk about yourself and how your ideas are 
so very important, all the while failing to engage the many (very 
justified) criticisms of them on their own terms, and also frequently 
resorting to calling people dumb or stupid for not "getting" what you are 
saying, all the while receiving what appears to me to be very compassionate 
and patient explanations of why your ideas are either a) irrelevant (i.e. 
they don't solve any problems or anomalies that GR and SR can't already 
handle or b) provably wrong (i.e. the assumption of absolute simultaneity). 

 

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:48:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> First, thanks for the apology which I gratefully accept.
>
> However you have your facts completely wrong.
>
> It was NOT ME that posted a link to my personal blog, not a single one. It 
> was Terren that did that as I recall, but it most certainly was NOT ME. 
>
> I did post a SINGLE link to my company site later in response to questions 
> why I was late in responding to some posts what I was busy doing...(Liz and 
> others criticized my lack of immediate response on several occasions but I 
> at least do have a real life apart from this group!)
>
> So your claim that "Edgar REPEATEDLY posted links to both his business and 
> personal website" is simply FALSE. I posted only one link period.
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:20:29 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> I'm starting a new topic here so as not to derail any conversations on 
>> other threads -- the original thread I am commenting on seems to have some 
>> interesting stuff about computer simulations etc. and I don't want to 
>> bother others about it. 
>>
>> Edgar has repeatedly posted links to both his business and personal 
>> website, and his "life companion" request is there right on the front page, 
>> so I'm not sure how that constitutes snooping. 
>>
>> For Edgar, if it is true that you did lose your wife to cancer recently, 
>> I am very sorry for your loss. My father died of cancer when I was young, 
>> and I lost a close friend last Christmas to cancer as well, so I know how 
>> that feels. 
>>
>> Just digging down to nuts and bolts for a second, though, for those 
>> members on the list that subscribe to some version of "Everything Theory," 
>> (Bruno's UD, various forms of "computer simulation universe," Craig's 
>> multisense realism), I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good 
>> faith: what is the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these 
>> theories? Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where "Everything 
>> exists" and the self is simply a computation on a deeper eternal substrate 
>> and where time is an illusion? Indeed, isn't the whole humanistic, 
>> existentialist "point" of these theories to offer us a bit of succor in the 
>> face of inevitable death? 
>>
>> That is why I am interested in this stuff -- not simply for the 
>> intellectual fun and games of it all, but because I am truly terrified of 
>> oblivion and of losing everything I love to that oblivion, and yet 
>> everything in my observed world tells me that when we die, we are basically 
>> "broken machines" and our world completely and permanently disappears for 
>> us. That is why I desperately want to be convinced of any of the Everything 
>> theories that are discussed here, although I admit that the degree to which 
>> any of them offer any comfort at all is relative to how one is able to 
>> interpret the consequences of such theories to find a place for your 
>> personality in "the Everything." 
>>
>>  I didn't think pasting quite publicly available text from Edgar's 
>> website constitutes a "personal attack." Edgar seems quite happy to keep 
>> that information up on the web for anyone to see, so I hardly think it 
>>

Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey everyone,

I'm starting a new topic here so as not to derail any conversations on 
other threads -- the original thread I am commenting on seems to have some 
interesting stuff about computer simulations etc. and I don't want to 
bother others about it. 

Edgar has repeatedly posted links to both his business and personal 
website, and his "life companion" request is there right on the front page, 
so I'm not sure how that constitutes snooping. 

For Edgar, if it is true that you did lose your wife to cancer recently, I 
am very sorry for your loss. My father died of cancer when I was young, and 
I lost a close friend last Christmas to cancer as well, so I know how that 
feels. 

Just digging down to nuts and bolts for a second, though, for those members 
on the list that subscribe to some version of "Everything Theory," (Bruno's 
UD, various forms of "computer simulation universe," Craig's multisense 
realism), I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good faith: what 
is the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these theories? 
Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where "Everything exists" 
and the self is simply a computation on a deeper eternal substrate and 
where time is an illusion? Indeed, isn't the whole humanistic, 
existentialist "point" of these theories to offer us a bit of succor in the 
face of inevitable death? 

That is why I am interested in this stuff -- not simply for the 
intellectual fun and games of it all, but because I am truly terrified of 
oblivion and of losing everything I love to that oblivion, and yet 
everything in my observed world tells me that when we die, we are basically 
"broken machines" and our world completely and permanently disappears for 
us. That is why I desperately want to be convinced of any of the Everything 
theories that are discussed here, although I admit that the degree to which 
any of them offer any comfort at all is relative to how one is able to 
interpret the consequences of such theories to find a place for your 
personality in "the Everything." 

 I didn't think pasting quite publicly available text from Edgar's website 
constitutes a "personal attack." Edgar seems quite happy to keep that 
information up on the web for anyone to see, so I hardly think it 
constitutes snooping to cite it in a different forum. And my original 
observation that I could understand why he was alone was motivated by his 
continued truculence and seeming inability to incorporate and respond to 
the many pieces of feedback he had been given about his "theory"... I 
wouldn't want to be around somebody in real life who demonstrated such 
regular and fatuous disregard for what I was saying. 

So, just to sum up, I apologize, Edgar, for any pain that my copying and 
pasting of the text on your website caused you, and I apologize for 
suggesting that the reason you are alone is because you are probably a 
difficult person to live with in real life. I don't know anything about you 
in real life (aside from what you've put on your website, assuming it is 
all true), and I realize that this forum is not the place to engage in 
personal attacks. 

I'll be more thoughtful in the future. 

Best regards,

Dan Menon





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be 
Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some "non-feminist" women who 
could be?

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a 
> compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who 
> believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or 
> selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and 
> healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open 
> to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to 
> share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and 
> down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That 
> could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in 
> discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to 
> contact me at edgaro...@att.net. "
>
> And you said i didn't read things...
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Freq,
>>
>> But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
>>
>> You?
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
>>> finding a life partner. 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Freq,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
>>>>> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>>>>>
>>>>> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Edgar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jason,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
>>>>>>> "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
>>>>>>> answer your question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with 
>>>>>>> no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we 
>>>>>>> study 
>>>>>>> what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to 
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edgar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is too easy...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

 *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a 
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who 
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or 
selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and 
healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open 
to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to 
share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and 
down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That 
could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in 
discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to 
contact me at edgaro...@att.net. "

And you said i didn't read things...

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
>
> You?
>
> Edgar
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
>> finding a life partner. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Freq,
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
>>>> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>>>>
>>>> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Edgar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
>>>>>> "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
>>>>>> answer your question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with 
>>>>>> no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study 
>>>>>> what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to 
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edgar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>>>>
>>>>> This is too easy...
>>>>>
>>>>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>>>>
>>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
finding a life partner. 

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> OK.
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Freq,
>>
>> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
>> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>>
>> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
>> :-)
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jason,
>>>>
>>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
>>>> "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
>>>> answer your question.
>>>>
>>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
>>>> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
>>>> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>>>>
>>>> Edgar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>>
>>> This is too easy...
>>>
>>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

OK.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note 
> I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>
> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one 
>>> by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer 
>>> your question.
>>>
>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
>>> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
>>> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>
>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>
>> This is too easy...
>>
>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one 
> by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer 
> your question.
>
> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ 


http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html

http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

This is too easy...

Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!

As much as I love The Matrix (and I do love me some Matrix) and popcorn 
(ditto), I gotta tell ya, edgar, there is no better entertainment that 
seeing a grown man, who has been eating a steady diet of his own bullshit 
for years (it seems, as you do appear to be particularly truculent in your 
views), get called out on basics. Doubly entertaining is the fact that, as 
your paper house of "p-time" and "theory of reality" (HAHA, that is making 
me chuckle a bit just typing it) that you "wrote a book about" (HAHAHAHA, 
make it stop, please...) keeps getting more rained on and obviously not up 
to the scrutiny of even basic empirical and theoretical questions, and as 
your tin hat is increasingly unable to keep out those terrible rays of 
truth that perhaps you might not be such a misunderstood genius after all, 
but rather just another crank with too much time on their hands, you just 
redouble your efforts and tilt at bigger windmills I love it! Please, 
don't stop being you, and please keep on making more earth shattering 
"contributions" that all of us here are just too dull to get. 

Of course we're all too stupid to understand your brilliant insights... of 
course you are the solitary genius (HAHAHAHA)... carry on, PLEASE!!! And 
everyone else will carry on asking their oh so dumb questions about 

1) what empirical/theoretical anomalies/shortcomings/results your "theory" 
(chuckle) is able to explain

2) what observations/evidence/experiments (gedanken or otherwise) you might 
suggest that would convince us your theory is better

3) what theoretical/logical/mathematical framework does your theory build 
upon and in what way does it constitute an improvement (or what, you 
think your discovery is SO MINDBLOWINGLY ORIGINAL that there are simply no 
precedents for it? You have won the magical belief lottery?)  

And I will continue to lurk and eat my delicious popcorn... HURRAY FOR THE 
EVERYTHING LIST!!

On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:52:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Dear Flyer,
>
> You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the 
> Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful 
> to the discussion? 
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:44:47 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Haha! Ya Liz, I think your point is very well taken. 
>>
>> On my part, I am finding it infinitely amusing that a guy who is so 
>> obviously self-deluded and unable to grok any of the most basic criticisms 
>> of his "theory" from the many textbook gedanken experiments so 
>> compassionately offered by people (experiments, by the way, that are easy 
>> to find in sophomore college level textbooks on physics available for free 
>> on the web) on this list nevertheless feels as though what he says is 
>> original and important enough to write a book on "Reality". What could this 
>> guy possibly know about reality when he can't even answer in good faith 
>> some of the most basic objections made against his "account"? 
>>
>> Oi vey! At least Roger Clough's vacuous murmurings bow in the direction 
>> of greatness (Leibniz)... this guy pretends he's figured it all out for 
>> himself, and his (wrong, or at least apparently indefensible) theory stands 
>> alone and has no need to build upon or incorporate anything that came 
>> before. 
>>
>> Talk about hubris... 
>>
>> Nevertheless, following along is very entertaining for me!!
>>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:46:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Terren,
>>>>
>>>> First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories 
>>>> into standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be 
>>> prepared for some parts of your theory to overlap others. The definitions 
>>> and categories you use, the logic and any maths that is applicable, are all 
>>> derived from existing theories. What you call shoehorning is an attempt to 
>>> find out what your theory actually is.
>>>
>>> Over and over, someone makes a comparison and is told that is what your 
>>> theory is NOT. This is starting to look like "Games People Play" - I'm 
>>> thinking of the one where someone says they want to do X, their friend 
>>> says, "Why don't you (do something that will help you achieve X) "  to 
>>> which the other pers

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

[freqflyer07281972]

Haha! Ya Liz, I think your point is very well taken. 

On my part, I am finding it infinitely amusing that a guy who is so 
obviously self-deluded and unable to grok any of the most basic criticisms 
of his "theory" from the many textbook gedanken experiments so 
compassionately offered by people (experiments, by the way, that are easy 
to find in sophomore college level textbooks on physics available for free 
on the web) on this list nevertheless feels as though what he says is 
original and important enough to write a book on "Reality". What could this 
guy possibly know about reality when he can't even answer in good faith 
some of the most basic objections made against his "account"? 

Oi vey! At least Roger Clough's vacuous murmurings bow in the direction of 
greatness (Leibniz)... this guy pretends he's figured it all out for 
himself, and his (wrong, or at least apparently indefensible) theory stands 
alone and has no need to build upon or incorporate anything that came 
before. 

Talk about hubris... 

Nevertheless, following along is very entertaining for me!!

On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:46:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories 
>> into standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
>>
>
> This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be 
> prepared for some parts of your theory to overlap others. The definitions 
> and categories you use, the logic and any maths that is applicable, are all 
> derived from existing theories. What you call shoehorning is an attempt to 
> find out what your theory actually is.
>
> Over and over, someone makes a comparison and is told that is what your 
> theory is NOT. This is starting to look like "Games People Play" - I'm 
> thinking of the one where someone says they want to do X, their friend 
> says, "Why don't you (do something that will help you achieve X) "  to 
> which the other person always says "Yes, but..." and comes up with some 
> objection. So they never achieve X. In this case, we say "Why don't you 
> give a formal definition that anyone can understand?" and you say "Don't 
> shoehorn me - I've explained that - see my post of... it's obvious... 
> anyone who disagrees with me is a moron..." Anything but actually achieving 
> X, in this case a theory with a formal definition that can be critiqued. 
> It's almost as though you only came here in the hope that everyone would 
> say "Yes, wow, wonderful theory! Shut down CERN, this guy's got it all 
> worked out..."
>
> A formal definition is needed, with defined terms, assumptions, 
> deductions, proofs. You haven't even given a proper definition of P-time 
> that actually makes sense yet.
>
> I await your hand waving tack spitting insistence that you have, or stony 
> silence 'cos I'm only a stupid gurl as the case may be.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

[freqflyer07281972]

Far from it, really;-) I assure you, I wish you no burning at any stakes, 
whether literal or figurative. You are perfectly entitled to be as 
incorrect as you wish, especially in an area as solidly established as 
relativistic physics.

It's just that (a ma parte, at least), I feel a bit bad for you, because 
you seem really deluded and you are kind of embarrassing yourself with your 
(wrong) insistence that "no one gets you". I think we all get what you are 
saying (i.e. understand the ideas that words you use are trying to convey). 
All of the sentence strings you use are well-formed. It's just that the 
picture they create in logical space doesn't correspond with the physical 
reality we happen to inhabit. That's all. It's not a matter of being 
persecuted because of dogma. It's just that, if you bothered to review the 
relevant literature, you'd see that you were wrong. 

But as I said before, and as you are showing again, I don't think there is 
any hope for you because you refuse to see things as they are. 

One thing to be said in your favor: at least what you say is refutable, 
unlike Roger Clough, whose ideas are so vacuous and anodyne that they can't 
even be dignified by calling them "wrong". 

Cheers! 

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 7:02:05 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
>
> Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious 
> dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake! 
> Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories!
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:55:09 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates 
>> conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor 
>> comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected 
>> early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you 
>> ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of 
>> logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a 
>> universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow 
>> but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - 
>> self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously 
>> questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a 
>> brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong 
>> revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every 
>> rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood 
>> visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

[freqflyer07281972]

ALL HAIL TIME CUBE!! <http://www.timecube.com/>

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:35:10 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> In order for criticism to be effective, the one being criticized must be 
> willing to see his errors, something I think you have long ago given up. 
>
> I'm afraid there is no help for you, my friend.
>
> On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:11:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and 
>> physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never claimed to 
>> be a genius though.
>> :-)
>>
>> And Richard, thanks again for the invite to the group! It's a good forum 
>> to try to clarify the presentation of my ideas Nothing does that better 
>> than sharp criticism
>>
>> Best,
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:02:51 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>>
>>> all,
>>> According to Mr. Qwen, he was a child genius.
>>> On every other list he has appeared the genius still.
>>> So I thought I should subject him to this list.
>>> Thanks for coming through.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Pierz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it 
>>>> violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting 
>>>> poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you 
>>>> suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he 
>>>> asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his 
>>>> basic 
>>>> error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore 
>>>> there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not 
>>>> necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's 
>>>> written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of 
>>>> seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: 
>>>> have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a 
>>>> wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason 
>>>> that 
>>>> every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a 
>>>> misunderstood 
>>>> visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

[freqflyer07281972]

In order for criticism to be effective, the one being criticized must be 
willing to see his errors, something I think you have long ago given up. 

I'm afraid there is no help for you, my friend.

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:11:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and 
> physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never claimed to 
> be a genius though.
> :-)
>
> And Richard, thanks again for the invite to the group! It's a good forum 
> to try to clarify the presentation of my ideas Nothing does that better 
> than sharp criticism
>
> Best,
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:02:51 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> all,
>> According to Mr. Qwen, he was a child genius.
>> On every other list he has appeared the genius still.
>> So I thought I should subject him to this list.
>> Thanks for coming through.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Pierz  wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates 
>>> conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor 
>>> comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected 
>>> early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you 
>>> ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of 
>>> logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a 
>>> universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow 
>>> but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - 
>>> self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously 
>>> questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a 
>>> brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong 
>>> revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every 
>>> rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood 
>>> visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Dear Edgar Owen

[freqflyer07281972]

Might I respectfully suggest the following:

1) That when you have an "obvious" intuition or brilliant stroke of insight 
that goes against a century or more of insight from the most distinguished 
physicists and

2) That when you are unable to operationalize your intuition in such a way 
that other people could perform an experiment to see what you are saying is 
true and that it does in fact go against the received wisdom then...

You might reconsider the merit of your originally amazing intuition and ask 
yourself if you might not in fact be in error and/or suffering from a bit 
of self-deception. Yes, it does seem quite "obvious" and "self-evident" 
that we all share a single present, I absolutely and utterly agree with you 
here. However, I also appreciate the various thought experiments put 
forward by Einstein originally and now by other (quite sharp) people on 
this list pointing out how this intuition simply cannot be true. These 
thought experiments have later become actual experiments whose results have 
agreed, not with our incredibly clear and obvious intuition, but with the 
very counter-intuitive predictions that Einstein provided.

I'm not going to hash out more examples. I don't think it's necessary. I've 
included some links you might want to read at the end. What I think is 
happening though is you might be deceiving yourself a bit in thinking that 
you are so brilliant in arriving at insights that absolutely no one else 
has come to, and you are kind of starting to come across like this 
guy. 

If you really want to understand behavior of the physical world we live in 
(or apparently physical, but actually computational, a la Bruno), maybe try 
these links out: 

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/srelwhat.html

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

Peace out,

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: "humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,"

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey Craig,

What is the origin of the quote? Also, what privileges the process of 
'introspection' to reveal anything contrary to the hypothesis that we are 
machines? Isn't introspection a bit of a dubious test for finding out a 
thing's machinehood? 

Finally, I'm not so sure that it is 'consciousness' (yet another word that 
is frequently thrown around as a symbol with no proper referent) that is 
responsible for uniqueness and unrepeatability as it is the infinitesimally 
small chance that all of the quantum correlations that exist in a current 
observer moment could ever be repeated... and if they could, that would 
nevertheless include no information about whether the entire state had been 
repeated or not. 

I dunno, seems like a lot of hand waving to me... I do feel rather 
convinced of precisely the sentiment that the quotation you led off with 
expresses, namely that we are machines made of machines made of machines 
made of... information eventually. And the information is processed by some 
set of very fundamental rules. I do get your rejoinder, however which I 
think is something like: If everything is information fundamentally 
operating according to computational principles, why on earth would there 
"be something" that it is like to be that computation? Whence the "inner 
life" and rich inner experiences we have access to in introspection? Whence 
the qualia? And honestly, I don't have an answer for that. I take it your 
answer (sorry to rehash some of this, but I find it helpful to deepen my 
understanding) is that everything is endowed with primitive "sense making" 
faculties, kind of like a panpsychism. I'm wondering, why can't this axiom 
simply be added on to the idea that we are machines made of information? 
i.e. we are machines made of information and information itself has an 
inner life?  

It's beginning to sound a lot like woo, so I'd better stop there. 

Best regards,

Dan



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:40:32 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> "humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,"
>>
>
> I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but when they introspect on 
> their most mechanical aspects mechanistically, they are able to imagine 
> that they could be machines who are unable recognize the fact."
>
> I agree that there is an intrinsic limit to Strong AI, but I think that 
> the limit is at the starting gate. Since consciousness is the embodiment of 
> uniqueness and unrepeatability, there is no "almost" conscious. It doesn't 
> matter how much the artist in the painting looks like he is really painting 
> himself in the mirror, or how realistic Escher makes the staircase look, 
> those realities are forever sculpted in theory, not in the multisense 
> realism.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey everyone, 
 
Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- 
 
I came across this 
postover 
at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be 
claiming that the 
relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty 
well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists 
and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in 
terms of physical processes. 
 
What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation 
towards questions of information theory? 
 
How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, 
information, and the physical evolution of the universe? 
 
Cheers,
 
Dan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain

[freqflyer07281972]

What are the 8 hypostases? I've seen this referred to a few other times on 
this list and have never really known what it refers to.

thanks

dan

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:30:26 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:08:16 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:53:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I refer you to my rare posts where I suggest that the level is the   
> >> molecular level, and should include the glial cells, which in my   
> >> opinion (from diverse reading) handle to information. 
> >> 
> >> I also defend the idea that an amoeba, by being unicellular, can be   
> >> seen as a cell being simultaneously a digestive cell, a muscular   
> >> cells, a liver cell, a kidney cell, a bone cell, and a brain cell. 
> >> 
> >> Amoebas are not completely stupid and deserve respects, and so are   
> >> any each of our own cells, despite those cells in multicellular   
> >> organism have lost a bit of their freedom and universality to   
> >> cooperate in what is ourself. 
> >> 
> >> Again, the bold quote illustrates comp, and the fact that the level   
> >> is lower than some thought. 
> >> 
> >> Also with comp, consciousness is NOT a product of the mind. that's   
> >> still too much an aristotelian way to express the "identity"   
> >> thesis. Consciousness is not physical, it is the mental state of   
> >> person associated to machines, when those person develop *some*   
> >> true belief. 
> >> 
> >> So if dendrites and molecules are people, why not quarks and numbers? 
> > 
> > Cells are people, perhaps. Dendrites and molecules lack self- 
> > referential means, like quarks. 
> > 
> > How do you know? From the article, dendrites seem to be doing what   
> > (we think that) a neuron does. 
>
> We can' know. An why would not a dendrite be a puppet manipulated by   
> neurons. 
> My hand might have a more complex behavior than a dendrite, yet I do   
> not consider my hand as a person. 
>
>
>
> > 
> > relative numbers does not lack them, but as 3p pure notion, are not   
> > people, but people can emerge from them and their cognitive abilities. 
> > 
> > What do they emerge into, 
>
> Into person, or people. 
>
>
>
> > given they lack sensory abilities? 
>
> Like molecules or elementary particles and waves. 
>
> The person, including the sensory abilities, is what emerge. To be   
> more correct, the person is just the universal person, already in   
> Platonia, described by the 8 hypostases, and which quickly believes   
> itself to be a particular person when forgetting where she comes from. 
>
> The sensory abilities are well described by the universal person   
> canonically associated to the universal machine, in his "Bp & Dt & p"   
> discourse, notably. 
>
> The waves, the molecules, eventually the number relations   
> particularize, or incarnate, the person in different context, but they   
> don't create the person, nor produce consciousness. (I assume comp, of   
> course). 
>
> 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Dialetheism

[freqflyer07281972]

Craig, 

As sympathetic as I am to all of your various multisense realism projects 
and the different conclusions they are intended to imply, 
I must warn you: 

If you're going to try to prove black is white, beware the Zebra 
crossings...(and if you don't get it, read Douglas Adams and the ultimate 
"disproof" of God)

Peace

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:54:45 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:13:33 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
>>>
>>> Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false 
>>> simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true 
>>> statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called "true 
>>> contradictions", or dialetheia.
>>>
>>> "Doublethink" as defined in "1984" is almost exactly this.
>>
>
> Not exactly. Trivialism is more that indiscriminate sense of 'anything can 
> be true or not true'. Diathelethism is about recognizing that there are 
> limitations in the way that language can meaningfully represent the full 
> richness of nature.
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: I have a very good question but I don't know how to ask it...

[freqflyer07281972]

Put down your crack pipe and seek help

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:23:39 AM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote:
>
> Without coaching anyway assume an answer. Trust me, it really is on-optic; 
> it has something to do with a supercomputer.
>
> Annywy, here does: Give that I am Neo, is it possible for me to bot 
> attended and not addending the wedding of Tim Lee and Jess Han without 
> actually doing it, such that Tim Lee becomes reborn as Wakka?
>
> It''s actually a good question, but if you have no idea what it means, Try 
> not to embarrass yourself by thinking you know. It has to with the fact 
> that I think we converge the same person in the end which becomse our own 
> beginning. Unfortunatley, sometimes we lose track of where we started or 
> where you're spposed to do...
>
> Thanks,
> Stephen
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey?

[freqflyer07281972]

I think you need to lay off whatever drugs you are doing, find faith in 
some kind of higher power, and stop posting in a place on the internet made 
for serious thinkers and not lame ass dilletantes such as yourself. You do 
know you can comment on Youtube videos, don't you?

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:00:52 PM UTC-4, Stephen Lin 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: About wisdom

[freqflyer07281972]

Stephen Lin, 

Are you on some kind of methamphetamine binge where you think it is totally 
cool for you to post vaguely sensible (but mostly nonsensical) thoughts 
that drive through your drug addled brain? 

Dude, we've all been there, we've got the t-shirts and postcards, and we 
are ready for something more... mature. 

At first, I thought you might have been on to something, but now I know you 
are useless. Please, stop cluttering up this board with your inanities. 
there are many other places on the internet where you can dump your mental 
garbage. 

Cheers,

Dan
Oh, and by the way, this pretty much eliminates that stupid thesis you have 
that we are all "Neo" from the matrix... I ain't neo, but I wish for fuck 
that you would just go away, idiot. That proves that there is at least one 
other person in the universe besides you who basically hates your guts... 

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:12:57 PM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote:
>
> Wisdom is the art of coming up with believable excuses for one's ignorance.
> Discuss.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Panopticon: QM and Relativity

[freqflyer07281972]

Whoa, dude... you just blew my mind! 

I love this list!

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:46:14 AM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote:
>
> A quote I got somewhere: "Understanding that the world is a Panopticon is 
> the easy part; the hard part is figuring out whether you're on the inside 
> looking out or the outside looking in."
>
> Anyone have any thoughts? :) Personally, I find it interesting that 
> quantum physics allows _either_ non-determinism or non-local determinism, 
> and relativity seems to imply that non-local determinism, if it exists, can 
> never be proven without violating causality. Very much a Panopticon: 
> there's plausibly anyone watching and also plausibly everyone watching, and 
> no way of finding out which.
>
> Furthermore, if physics is always symmetric, then you can't tell if, in 
> the process of watching, you're actually the one being watched instead :)
>
> -Stephen
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The I Concept, Analytically

[freqflyer07281972]

Yes, but you see, even the food we get from the restaurant, is delicious. 
Why would it be delicious, assuming COMP. How could the primary modalities 
of things be good or bad assuming COMP? I know most people here think Craig 
is a hand waver, but I honestly cannot understand how qualia emerge from 
quantia, including their(meaning, my experiences) magically "emerge" from 
the many quants that Bruno's idea seems to require.  

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 1:00:38 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 10/11/2013 9:44 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>  
> Sometimes, Bruno, I get the feeling as though you are a chef at a 
> restaurant with a wonderful menu, but whenever anyone orders an item on it, 
> all you can do is give them exactly the same picture of the item they 
> ordered from the menu, but never the real thing!!! 
> By the way, I do think your restaurant in terms of philosophical and 
> intellectual satisfaction is one of the best in town! 
>  
>
> Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a 30,000 page menu and no 
> food.
> --- Robert Pirsig
>
> 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/groups/opt_out.

Note to Russell Standish

[freqflyer07281972]

Dear Russell, 

Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on 
Bruno's 
"mathematical reductionism":

1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness 

2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and 
complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but 
not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like 
Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler."   

3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is 
one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler 
initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, 
that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) 
process. 

4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, 
you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and 
consequently inter-subjectivity.


My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed your 
mind about any of these presuppositions? 

Yours forever in the multiverse,
Dan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

[freqflyer07281972]

And where you say:

Any way, I don't defend comp, I just show that comp makes physics   
derivable in arithmetic, and that if you do it in some way, (using the   
logic of self-reference) you can extract a general theory of qualia,   
with its quanta part that you can compare with nature, and so test   
comp. And up to now, it fits well with the facts. 

What the hell are you talking about? I don't mean to be John Clark rude, but
honestly, I can't see at all how qualia can possibly emerge from your 
theory, 

Cheers, and still looking for "the answer", 

Dan

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 1:33:10 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I think I'd like to respond 
> here: 
>
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote: 
>>
>> > Hey all on the list, 
>> > 
>> > Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this   
>> > teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's   
>> > Razorish to simply conclude from the entire argument that the   
>> > correct substitution level is, in principle, not only not knowable,   
>> > but not achievable, which means: 
>> > 
>> > congratulations, you have found a convincing thought experiment   
>> > proof that teleportation is impossible in any cases greater than,   
>> > say, 12 atoms or so (give me a margin of error of about plus/minus   
>> > 100) ... 
>>
>> No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions:  (MAT is weak   
>> materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) 
>>
>> COMP   -> NOT MAT 
>> MAT -> NOT COMP 
>> NOT MAT or NOT COMP 
>>
>> I keep COMP as a working hypothesis, as I have no clue what really MAT   
>> means or explains, and we don't find a contradiction, just a weirdness   
>> close to quantum Everett. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > this is very reminiscent of the way that time travel theorists use   
>> > some of godel's closed timelike curve (CTC) solutions to einstein's   
>> > relativity to argue that time travel to the past is possible. The   
>> > problem is, the furthest back you can go is when you made the CTC,   
>> > and yet in order to make the CTC, the formal and physical conditions   
>> > require that you already have to have a time machine. This, of   
>> > course, leads to paradox, because in order to travel in the time   
>> > machine in the first place, you have to have had a time machine to   
>> > use as a kind of mechanism for the whole project. 
>>
>> But such loop can exist consistently in solution of the GR equation.   
>> that's what Gödel showed. I don't think this was really a problem for   
>> Einstein, as he said more than once, that time is an illusion. We   
>> would say now that it is a machine mental construction, which obeys   
>> the laws of machines. 
>>
>> But here we have the essence of the problem, I think. Simply because the 
> mathematics or the logics of a given 
> problem happens to state that something CAN occur, this is absolutely no 
> imposition upon nature that such things
> MUST occur... we find certain things in mathematics that may or may not 
> correspond to reality. It is truly uncanny in the 
> ways that mathematics does correspond, absolutely no doubt or argument. 
> But what of all that stuff where 
> the math simply has nothing to say? How can you possibly derive qualia 
> from math without a bunch of basic 
> handwaving -- which is really what you are doing when you cite such 
> arguments as Bp & p etc etc it is 
> really a lot of handwaving nonsense that never gets close to the issue at 
> all...
>
> I really love the idea of your theory of everything Bruno, I really do, 
> but when it comes to my next meal, or what I need to do with my 
> life, or what my next big decision is going to be, this is of no help. 
> BTW, if it's of any console, Craig's theory of everything doesn't help me 
> in the 
> same basic ways, so there... the thing is... all this stuff is about 
> abstraction, and yet life as lived is anything but abstraction...
> all particularities matter, at every level, shouldn't a theory of 
> everything really be a theory of particularities and contingencies, as they 
> have been produced?
> and not a theory of general particularities that no one is really 
> concerned about? 
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan 
>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> > In the same way

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

[freqflyer07281972]

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I think I'd like to respond 
here: 

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote: 
>
> > Hey all on the list, 
> > 
> > Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this   
> > teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's   
> > Razorish to simply conclude from the entire argument that the   
> > correct substitution level is, in principle, not only not knowable,   
> > but not achievable, which means: 
> > 
> > congratulations, you have found a convincing thought experiment   
> > proof that teleportation is impossible in any cases greater than,   
> > say, 12 atoms or so (give me a margin of error of about plus/minus   
> > 100) ... 
>
> No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions:  (MAT is weak   
> materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) 
>
> COMP   -> NOT MAT 
> MAT -> NOT COMP 
> NOT MAT or NOT COMP 
>
> I keep COMP as a working hypothesis, as I have no clue what really MAT   
> means or explains, and we don't find a contradiction, just a weirdness   
> close to quantum Everett. 
>
>
>
>
> > this is very reminiscent of the way that time travel theorists use   
> > some of godel's closed timelike curve (CTC) solutions to einstein's   
> > relativity to argue that time travel to the past is possible. The   
> > problem is, the furthest back you can go is when you made the CTC,   
> > and yet in order to make the CTC, the formal and physical conditions   
> > require that you already have to have a time machine. This, of   
> > course, leads to paradox, because in order to travel in the time   
> > machine in the first place, you have to have had a time machine to   
> > use as a kind of mechanism for the whole project. 
>
> But such loop can exist consistently in solution of the GR equation.   
> that's what Gödel showed. I don't think this was really a problem for   
> Einstein, as he said more than once, that time is an illusion. We   
> would say now that it is a machine mental construction, which obeys   
> the laws of machines. 
>
> But here we have the essence of the problem, I think. Simply because the 
mathematics or the logics of a given 
problem happens to state that something CAN occur, this is absolutely no 
imposition upon nature that such things
MUST occur... we find certain things in mathematics that may or may not 
correspond to reality. It is truly uncanny in the 
ways that mathematics does correspond, absolutely no doubt or argument. But 
what of all that stuff where 
the math simply has nothing to say? How can you possibly derive qualia from 
math without a bunch of basic 
handwaving -- which is really what you are doing when you cite such 
arguments as Bp & p etc etc it is 
really a lot of handwaving nonsense that never gets close to the issue at 
all...

I really love the idea of your theory of everything Bruno, I really do, but 
when it comes to my next meal, or what I need to do with my 
life, or what my next big decision is going to be, this is of no help. BTW, 
if it's of any console, Craig's theory of everything doesn't help me in the 
same basic ways, so there... the thing is... all this stuff is about 
abstraction, and yet life as lived is anything but abstraction...
all particularities matter, at every level, shouldn't a theory of 
everything really be a theory of particularities and contingencies, as they 
have been produced?
and not a theory of general particularities that no one is really concerned 
about? 

cheers,

Dan 

>
>
> > 
> > In the same way, I think, does your ingenious UDA lead not to the   
> > conclusion you want it to, (i.e. we are eternal numbers contained in   
> > the computation of some infinite computer) but rather the less   
> > appealing conclusion that, perhaps, the teleportation required in   
> > your entire thought experiment is simply impossible, for much of the   
> > same reasons as time travel is impossible. 
>
> But then we cannot be even quantum computer, because they can emulate   
> by a classical machine, and they too exist in the arithmetical realm. 
>
> Any way, I don't defend comp, I just show that comp makes physics   
> derivable in arithmetic, and that if you do it in some way, (using the   
> logic of self-reference) you can extract a general theory of qualia,   
> with its quanta part that you can compare with nature, and so test   
> comp. And up to now, it fits well with the facts. 
>
>
>
> > 
> > It's still an important result, but perhaps not as

Re: The I Concept, Analytically

[freqflyer07281972]

On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic 
> complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to 
> be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s. 
>  
> The impulses in question are affective, so that the inferential "I" is 
> affective rather than intellectual. 
>  
> What is the origin of the vocable "I"? Every "living" phenomenon, every 
> sentient complex must necessarily have a centre, call it "heart" or "head". 
>  
> Such centre in itself is as phenomenal as the appearance of which it forms 
> the "heart" or "centre", but its necessary function is the organization and 
> care of the phenomenon which it controls. Emotions such as fear, greed, 
> love-hate arise on behalf of the phenomenon for which they constitute 
> protection and stimulate survival and perpetuation in the space-time 
> context of manifestation. Consequently the vocable "I", representing this 
> "centre", represents the physical body, and this representation is 
> responsible for the identification which constitutes bondage. 
>  
> This "centre", then, is the phenomenal basis of an I-concept or ego or 
> self, which is inferential and has no existence in the sense of being 
> capable of independent action as a thing-in-itself. On account of the 
> emotions of physical origin for which this I-concept assumes 
> responsibility, the whole complex has the appearance of an independent 
> entity which it is not-- since it is totally "lived" or "dreamed" by the 
> noumenality which is all that it is.
>  
> It is this "centre", and every impulse that arises in a psyche, to which 
> is attached the vocable "I", and this it is to which is attributed 
> responsibility for each thought that arises in consciousness and every 
> action of the apparent "individual". It is this, of course, to which the 
> term "ego" is applied, whose functioning is known as "volition". In fact, 
> however, it merely performs its own function in perfect ignorance of what 
> is assigned to its agency.
>  
> It was never I and never could it be I, for never could any "thing", any 
> object of consciousness, be I. There cannot be an objective "I" for, 
> so-being, it would have to become an object to itself and could no longer 
> be I. That is why "Is-ness" must be the absence of both object and subject, 
> whose integration in mutual absence is devoid of objective existence.
>  
> I could never be anything, I CANNOT EVEN BE I, for all being is 
> determined. Nor could I ever be identified with anything objective, and "an 
> I" is a contradiction in terms. I am no "thing" whatever, not even 
> "is-ness." 
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The I Concept, Analytically

[freqflyer07281972]

On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:18:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2013, at 08:58, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic 
> complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to 
> be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s. 
>  
> The impulses in question are affective, so that the inferential "I" is 
> affective rather than intellectual. 
>  
> What is the origin of the vocable "I"? Every "living" phenomenon, every 
> sentient complex must necessarily have a centre, call it "heart" or "head". 
>  
> Such centre in itself is as phenomenal as the appearance of which it forms 
> the "heart" or "centre", but its necessary function is the organization and 
> care of the phenomenon which it controls. Emotions such as fear, greed, 
> love-hate arise on behalf of the phenomenon for which they constitute 
> protection and stimulate survival and perpetuation in the space-time 
> context of manifestation. Consequently the vocable "I", representing this 
> "centre", represents the physical body, and this representation is 
> responsible for the identification which constitutes bondage. 
>  
> This "centre", then, is the phenomenal basis of an I-concept or ego or 
> self, which is inferential and has no existence in the sense of being 
> capable of independent action as a thing-in-itself. On account of the 
> emotions of physical origin for which this I-concept assumes 
> responsibility, the whole complex has the appearance of an independent 
> entity which it is not-- since it is totally "lived" or "dreamed" by the 
> noumenality which is all that it is.
>  
> It is this "centre", and every impulse that arises in a psyche, to which 
> is attached the vocable "I", and this it is to which is attributed 
> responsibility for each thought that arises in consciousness and every 
> action of the apparent "individual". It is this, of course, to which the 
> term "ego" is applied, whose functioning is known as "volition". In fact, 
> however, it merely performs its own function in perfect ignorance of what 
> is assigned to its agency.
>  
> It was never I and never could it be I, for never could any "thing", any 
> object of consciousness, be I. There cannot be an objective "I" for, 
> so-being, it would have to become an object to itself and could no longer 
> be I. That is why "Is-ness" must be the absence of both object and subject, 
> whose integration in mutual absence is devoid of objective existence.
>  
> I could never be anything, I CANNOT EVEN BE I, for all being is 
> determined. Nor could I ever be identified with anything objective, and "an 
> I" is a contradiction in terms. I am no "thing" whatever, not even 
> "is-ness." 
>
>
> That is a not too bad description of the machines first person I. They 
> agree with you, as far as "you" means something, which I am sure it does.
>
> Amazingly this is provable by machine, once they accept to identify the 
> 1-I with the knower, and to define the knower by true believer/dreamer.
>
> Bruno
>
> And who is the knower? God, my brain breaks/brakes so many times reading 
> this shit, in this mailing list... who is interested in doing the proving? 
> Who wants to prove, and why? Is it merely a spontaneous fact? If so, what 
> of my internal states that seem so far removed from mathematical proof? 
>

Sometimes, Bruno, I get the feeling as though you are a chef at a 
restaurant with a wonderful menu, but whenever anyone orders an item on it, 
all you can do is give them exactly the same picture of the item they 
ordered from the menu, but never the real thing!!! 
By the way, I do think your restaurant in terms of philosophical and 
intellectual satisfaction is one of the best in town! 

>
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The I Concept, Analytically

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey Craig, thanks for the feedback. Please refer to below:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:10:39 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic 
>> complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to 
>> be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s. 
>>  
>> The impulses in question are affective, so that the inferential "I" is 
>> affective rather than intellectual. 
>>  
>> What is the origin of the vocable "I"? Every "living" phenomenon, every 
>> sentient complex must necessarily have a centre, call it "heart" or "head". 
>>  
>> Such centre in itself is as phenomenal as the appearance of which it 
>> forms the "heart" or "centre", but its necessary function is the 
>> organization and care of the phenomenon which it controls. Emotions such as 
>> fear, greed, love-hate arise on behalf of the phenomenon for which they 
>> constitute protection and stimulate survival and perpetuation in the 
>> space-time context of manifestation. Consequently the vocable "I", 
>> representing this "centre", represents the physical body, and this 
>> representation is responsible for the identification which constitutes 
>> bondage. 
>>  
>> This "centre", then, is the phenomenal basis of an I-concept or ego or 
>> self, which is inferential and has no existence in the sense of being 
>> capable of independent action as a thing-in-itself. On account of the 
>> emotions of physical origin for which this I-concept assumes 
>> responsibility, the whole complex has the appearance of an independent 
>> entity which it is not-- since it is totally "lived" or "dreamed" by the 
>> noumenality which is all that it is.
>>  
>> It is this "centre", and every impulse that arises in a psyche, to which 
>> is attached the vocable "I", and this it is to which is attributed 
>> responsibility for each thought that arises in consciousness and every 
>> action of the apparent "individual". It is this, of course, to which the 
>> term "ego" is applied, whose functioning is known as "volition". In fact, 
>> however, it merely performs its own function in perfect ignorance of what 
>> is assigned to its agency.
>>  
>> It was never I and never could it be I, for never could any "thing", any 
>> object of consciousness, be I. There cannot be an objective "I" for, 
>> so-being, it would have to become an object to itself and could no longer 
>> be I. That is why "Is-ness" must be the absence of both object and subject, 
>> whose integration in mutual absence is devoid of objective existence.
>>
>
> Nice post. Why can't is-ness be the reconciliation of both object and 
> subject instead though? Not an absence, but the presence of the sense of 
> absence from which all implicit and explicit experience is appreciated in 
> solitude/solace/peace. The vocable "I" may be ignorant of its agency, but 
> the noumenal privacy which dreams the I may not be ignorant, and it may not 
> be fundamentally different from the representations of itself that it does 
> experience. Greater, certainly, but not alienated from it absolutely. We 
> need not doubt our own agency, even if the doubter is not identical in 
> every way to the agency that it doubts. Human consciousness is multivalent 
> and only semi-unanamous, but that doesn't mean that awareness itself is 
> similarly fragmented split off from itself. Volition is not an illusion, it 
> just has incomplete access to knowledge of itself. The is-ness of the 
> objective world would not be very convincing if everyone walked around as 
> omniscient immortals.
>  
>
>>  
>>
> First of all, let me say that I am no fan of determinism, even when it is 
clothed up in the fancy reasoning that Bruno provides. I do believe in 
irreducible agency and volition, and I don't think (a la John Clark) that 
all states of affairs can be exhausted by simple repetition of double sided 
tautologies... nature proves amply that binary thinking is bad thinking, 
and I always hate (but also love, because John is such a good reasoner, 
given his assumptions) to see arguments that get cashed out in terms of a 
basic set of binary values.I think there are more choices than 
random/determinate, but we probably can't distinguish or frame them, just 
like prehistoric planari

The I Concept, Analytically

[freqflyer07281972]

The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic 
complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to 
be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s. 
 
The impulses in question are affective, so that the inferential "I" is 
affective rather than intellectual. 
 
What is the origin of the vocable "I"? Every "living" phenomenon, every 
sentient complex must necessarily have a centre, call it "heart" or "head". 
 
Such centre in itself is as phenomenal as the appearance of which it forms 
the "heart" or "centre", but its necessary function is the organization and 
care of the phenomenon which it controls. Emotions such as fear, greed, 
love-hate arise on behalf of the phenomenon for which they constitute 
protection and stimulate survival and perpetuation in the space-time 
context of manifestation. Consequently the vocable "I", representing this 
"centre", represents the physical body, and this representation is 
responsible for the identification which constitutes bondage. 
 
This "centre", then, is the phenomenal basis of an I-concept or ego or 
self, which is inferential and has no existence in the sense of being 
capable of independent action as a thing-in-itself. On account of the 
emotions of physical origin for which this I-concept assumes 
responsibility, the whole complex has the appearance of an independent 
entity which it is not-- since it is totally "lived" or "dreamed" by the 
noumenality which is all that it is.
 
It is this "centre", and every impulse that arises in a psyche, to which is 
attached the vocable "I", and this it is to which is attributed 
responsibility for each thought that arises in consciousness and every 
action of the apparent "individual". It is this, of course, to which the 
term "ego" is applied, whose functioning is known as "volition". In fact, 
however, it merely performs its own function in perfect ignorance of what 
is assigned to its agency.
 
It was never I and never could it be I, for never could any "thing", any 
object of consciousness, be I. There cannot be an objective "I" for, 
so-being, it would have to become an object to itself and could no longer 
be I. That is why "Is-ness" must be the absence of both object and subject, 
whose integration in mutual absence is devoid of objective existence.
 
I could never be anything, I CANNOT EVEN BE I, for all being is determined. 
Nor could I ever be identified with anything objective, and "an I" is a 
contradiction in terms. I am no "thing" whatever, not even "is-ness." 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

The confluence of cosmology and biology

[freqflyer07281972]

So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular 
confluence of cosmological and biological factors.
 
The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten 
strong enough to rip the whole works apart,
that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a 
perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse,
that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can 
rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so,
that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that 
it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!)
 
The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating molecule 
was able to find purchase on a home (DNA),
that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't 
burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other 
stars do)
that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of 
atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp
that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are 
almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally
 
And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their inexorable 
arithmetic relations(Bruno),
And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps the 
only thing (Craig),
 
But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors 
that allows us to have this conversation in the first place,
 
comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the 
sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent 
thing to evolve, how could it be computational?
multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their 
structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why 
hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation
 
 
Peace,

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How PIP solves the hard problem of consciousness

[freqflyer07281972]

Thanks Craig, you've articulated quite well a number of difficulties in 
approaching the hard problem, IMHO. I was reading this article in the SEP 
and thought of your approach:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro/

Look especially under his glossing of the idea of 'pure experience.' It 
reminds me of your MR/PIP and seems quite congenial to it. 

Whaddaya think? 

On Monday, September 16, 2013 1:35:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> The Hard Problem of consciousness asks why there is a gap between our 
> explanation of matter, or biology, or neurology, and our experience in the 
> first place. What is it there which even suggests to us that there should 
> be a gap, and why should there be a such thing as experience to stand apart 
> from the functions of that which we can explain.
>
> *Materialism only miniaturizes the gap* and relies on a machina ex deus 
> (intentionally reversed deus ex machina) of ‘complexity’ to save the day. 
> An interesting question would be, why does dualism seem to be easier to 
> overlook when we are imagining the body of a neuron, or a collection of 
> molecules? I submit that it is because miniaturization and complexity 
> challenge the limitations of our cognitive ability, we find it easy to 
> conflate that sort of quantitative incomprehensibility with the other 
> incomprehensibility being considered, namely aesthetic* awareness. What 
> consciousness does with phenomena which pertain to a distantly scaled 
> perceptual frame is to under-signify it. It becomes less important, less 
> real, less worthy of attention.
>
> *Idealism only fictionalizes the gap*. I argue that idealism makes more 
> sense on its face than materialism for addressing the Hard Problem, since 
> material would have no plausible excuse for becoming aware or being 
> entitled to access an unacknowledged a priori possibility of awareness. 
> Idealism however, fails at commanding the respect of a sophisticated 
> perspective since it relies on naive denial of objectivity. Why so many 
> molecules? Why so many terrible and tragic experiences? Why so much 
> enduring of suffering and injustice? The thought of an afterlife is too 
> seductive of a way to wish this all away. The concept of maya, that the 
> world is a veil of illusion is too facile to satisfy our scientific 
> curiosity.
>
> *Dualism multiplies the gap*. Acknowledging the gap is a good first step, 
> but without a bridge, the gap is diagonalized and stuck in infinite 
> regress. In order for experience to connect in some way with physics, some 
> kind of homunculus is invoked, some third force or function interceding on 
> behalf of the two incommensurable substances. The third force requires a 
> fourth and fifth force on either side, and so forth, as in a Zeno paradox. 
> Each homunculus has its own Explanatory Gap.
>
> *Dual Aspect Monism retreats from the gap*. The concept of material and 
> experience being two aspects of a continuous whole is the best one so far – 
> getting very close. The only problem is that it does not explain what this 
> monism is, or where the aspects come from. It rightfully honors the 
> importance of opposites and duality, but it does not question what they 
> actually are. Laws? Information?
>
> *Panpsychism toys with the gap*.Depending on what kind of panpsychism is 
> employed, it can miniaturize, multiply, or retreat from the gap. At least 
> it is committing to closing the gap in a way which does not take human 
> exceptionalism for granted, but it still does not attempt to integrate 
> qualia itself with quanta in a detailed way. Tononi’s IIT might be an 
> exception in that it is detailed, but only from the quantitative end. The 
> hard problem, which involves justifying the reason for integrated 
> information being associated with a private ‘experience’ is still only 
> picked at from a distance.
>
> *Primordial Identity Pansensitivity,* my candidate for nomination, uses a 
> different approach than the above. PIP solves the hard problem by putting 
> the entire universe inside the gap. Consciousness *is* the Explanatory 
> Gap. Naturally, it follows serendipitously that consciousness is also 
> itself *explanatory*. The role of consciousness is to make plain – to 
> bring into aesthetic evidence that which can be made evident. How is that 
> different from what physics does? What does the universe do other than 
> generate aesthetic textures and narrative fragments? It is not awareness 
> which must fit into our physics or our science, our religion or philosophy, 
> it is the totality of eternity which must gain meaning and evidence through 
> sensory presentation.
>
>  
>
> *Is awareness ‘aesthetic’? That we call a substance which causes the loss 
> of consciousness a *general anesthetic* might be a serendipitous clue. If 
> so, the term local anesthetic as an agent which deadens sensation is 
> another hint about our intuitive correlation between discrete sensations 
> and overal

Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[freqflyer07281972]

 "And I have better ways to allocate my time than that." 

Coming from a cuckoo clock/roulette wheel... LOL. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Whui I keep posting about Leibniz

[freqflyer07281972]

Clever Robot!

On Monday, August 5, 2013 12:41:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> > in some respects, Roger seems like a shadow version of myself 
>
>
>  Does he also engage in astrology and numerology?
>
>  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/groups/opt_out.

Serious Proof of why I'm an Oblivious Moron

[freqflyer07281972]

Really?! You need proof? 

Try:

http://everything-list.105.n7.nabble.com/Not-to-worry-about-global-warming-We-re-long-overdue-for-an-ice-age-starting-iimmediately-td39038.html

http://everything-list.105.n7.nabble.com/Please-read-me-td39055.html

http://everything-list.105.n7.nabble.com/Think-of-the-brain-as-one-airport-among-many-the-mind-s-as-national-air-traffic-td37297.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/groups/opt_out.

cross-posting out of context and psychological manipulation

[freqflyer07281972]

Hi person from a totally different forum,

I'm just going to post my response to you here in this reading list, even 
though it has no bearing on anything that they usually (or at least used 
to, before I came along) talk about here, but subtly suggests that if 
someone keeps bugging me, I might kill myself and go on the the big monad 
in the sky -- at least I won't go to hell, where I'd actually have to 
converse coherently and intelligently with the likes of Christopher 
Hitchens. 

Um, if people keep bugging me here, I'm going to kill myself... GOT IT! 

So STOP BUGGING ME HERE, but let me BUG YOU HERE all I want. 

Leibniz Lover OUT.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Leibniz and bacon - because EVERYTHING goes well with both (therefore not off topic)

[freqflyer07281972]

A wise man once said (perhaps it was me, I don't know, I wrote it down but 
lost it during my last blackout): "BWAH! GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY WALLET YOU 
DIRTY FILCHER!" 

Bacon sure is good. And you know what else is good? Leibniz. But when bacon 
is cooking, I don't smell it, I only smell deliciousness. 

Bacon might be defined as the way we convert a pig into its essence -- 
which, in MY OWN TERMS, is the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of 
something (oh, what? that actually IS the definition of essence? nevermind, 
carry on...) 

Historically, since at least the time bacon was invented, vegetarians, 
jews, and other meat-hating, hell-bound monads of the liberal persuasion 
have denied the rights of bacon-eating individuals to enjoy its essence. 
Leibniz probably would have enjoyed a much leaner version of bacon than we 
are used, but he still would have apperceived that he perceived its 
deliciousness!

Here is a picture of a baconscape, with the lovely sun rising behind : 



(Brought to you by Oscar Mayer)

My personal thanks to the voices in my head for helping me craft this post 
and for giving me the explanation of bacon I have just 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: R: Leibniz was quite the dandy!

[freqflyer07281972]

The source for the quote given by Maxwell is found here:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=VvMzJiLU0fEC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=The+only+laws+of+matter+are+those+which+our+minds+must+fabricate,+and+the+only+laws+of+mind+are+fabricated+for+it+by+matter+maxwell+bibliography&source=bl&ots=bo4DyCQyrv&sig=s03OkLP1OfpFsmXc8ALUtdpu_sM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JcP-UYvuBMWZqgGh6YHgAQ&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=The%20only%20laws%20of%20matter%20are%20those%20which%20our%20minds%20must%20fabricate%2C%20and%20the%20only%20laws%20of%20mind%20are%20fabricated%20for%20it%20by%20matter%20maxwell%20bibliography&f=false


On Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:20:55 PM UTC-4, scerir wrote:
>
> On 8/4/2013 12:12 AM, scerir wrote:
>
> "The only laws of matter are those
> which our minds must fabricate,
> and the only laws of mind
> are fabricated for it by matter."
> - James Clerk Maxwell
>  
>
> Good quote.  Do you know the source?
> Brent
>
>
> # No, but there is another quote, and the
>
> source is W. Heisenberg:
>
>
> "Nature is earlier than man,
> but man is earlier than natural science."
> - Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker
>
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Whui I keep posting about Leibniz

[freqflyer07281972]

hysical, emergent, I think is to castigate the phenomena 
> and refuse to examine it intelligently. To me, this means understanding 
> that the nature of physics, while aesthetically divided on many levels into 
> public-facing and private-facing phenomena, and divided in an absolutely 
> perpendicular way (public bodies are nested additively from space , private 
> experiences are nested subtractively from eternity), physics, as a 
> pansensitive interaction, is an unbroken whole. Consciousness is not only 
> bipolar, it is divisible in multiple senses, although polarity is a 
> significant part of that theme and should not be overlooked. Object and 
> subject are more meaningful linguistically than scientifically. What is 
> real is public bodies and private experience. The dream basketball is like 
> a 'real' basketball except in the sense that the dream basketball cannot be 
> located in public. It is public vs private, or unity vs multiplicity which 
> united physics, mathematics, and subjective philosophy.
>
>
> As far as Bruno goes, I admire all of the work that I have seen of his, 
> and had this been another time in my life and were I more mathematically 
> literate, I would very likely think that his solution is the right one. As 
> it stands instead, my understanding has taken a different path in which I 
> can clearly see that any assumption of quantifiable phenomena as primary 
> cannot be correct. I have tried many times to explain here that this is not 
> because I want it to be that way, or because I fear technology or love 
> humanity, but rather that I understand the difference between aesthetic 
> experiences in which there is perception and participation, and mechanical 
> functions in a low level phenomena is used as a device to simulate parts of 
> experiences.
>
> It's hard to show some people why this difference is real and why it is 
> important (others get it right away). Ironically, Roger's obsession with 
> monads are part of the solution. Leibniz is not the only thinker to 
> conceive of the universe as emerging within a singularity rather than 
> exploding out of it. Terms like Totality, the Abolute, Ein Sof, Tao, 
> Brahman, Aion, etc, all suggest the same kind of 180 degree pivot of the 
> assumption of universe as assembled objects. Once we try this cosmological 
> flip, we wind up with experiences that can be counted, rather than 
> countings which can simulate experience. The totality of arithmetic truth 
> fits in as a single two dimensional slice across eternity, a vanishingly 
> thin layer, but universal in a horizontal sense. The rest of the universe 
> can only be experienced directly. Arithmetic truth is the shadow of the 
> monad - the imposter, the anesthetic servant whose job it is to minimize 
> consciousness, and to make it disappear.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 10:59:40 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Roger, 
>>
>> Just because you perceive that people are 'wasting their time' by 
>> providing their own unique points of view on questions dear to their heart 
>> (and not, by the way, on rehashing simplistic strawmen positions of 
>> philosophers that lived during the Age of Enlightenment) does not give you 
>> licence to therefore go ahead and 'waste their time.' See, it's sloppy 
>> thinking like this that makes you unwelcome on this list, not the 
>> profundity of anything you say. 
>>
>> What you have done is shown that you've mastered a grade school 
>> syllogism: 
>>
>> I am a subject. 
>> These things in front of me are my objects. 
>> Where is my subject? It can't be an object! 
>> Conclusion:
>>
>> The world is at heart dualistic! And our subject is radically different 
>> than our objects! 
>> So we need some 'non-physical principle' to explain this mysterious 
>> subject
>> (etc.)
>> Therefore God...(etc)
>>
>> I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the writing in the Western 
>> tradition of philosophy, or science (it was invented after Leibniz died), 
>> or if you just got bogged down in the 1700s with Leibniz et al., but this 
>> stuff is kind of old potatoes these days. What is far more fruitful (and 
>> fascinating, in my opinion) is how the brain arrives at a notion of 
>> subjectivity in the first place and how the brain works-- knowledge 
>> inferred from things like brain lesion studies and studies into perceptual 
>> self-deception. 
>>
>> When Craig talks about multisense realism, that is an original theory he 
>> has formulated to try to unify the two realms of external, perceived 
>&g

Leibniz was quite the dandy!

[freqflyer07281972]

What is matter?

   Never mind.

What is mind?

   No matter.

If life isn't non-physical, why can't I understand it? 

I think it's time I had some cake 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

If a donut was baked that was large enough, would the hole in the middle of it be so large that even God couldn't eat it?

[freqflyer07281972]

Should the holes in donuts even count as part of the donut? If so, what of 
Timbits? 

Could God eat so many donuts that there would be none left for us? 

Could we, perhaps term this the donut catastrophe?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Leibniz, now Leibniz was a man...

[freqflyer07281972]

A way out west there was a fella,

fella I want to tell you about, fella

by the name of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.  At

least, that was the handle his lovin'

parents gave him, but he never had

much use for it himself.  This

Leibniz, he called himself das Dude.

Now, Dude, that's a name no one would

self-apply where I come from.  But

then, there was a lot about das Dude

that didn't make a whole lot of sense

to me.  And a lot about what he thought, likewise.  
But then again,

maybe that's why I found his work 
*s'durned innarestin'.*

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Whui I keep posting about Leibniz

[freqflyer07281972]

Roger, 

Just because you perceive that people are 'wasting their time' by providing 
their own unique points of view on questions dear to their heart (and not, 
by the way, on rehashing simplistic strawmen positions of philosophers that 
lived during the Age of Enlightenment) does not give you licence to 
therefore go ahead and 'waste their time.' See, it's sloppy thinking like 
this that makes you unwelcome on this list, not the profundity of anything 
you say. 

What you have done is shown that you've mastered a grade school syllogism: 

I am a subject. 
These things in front of me are my objects. 
Where is my subject? It can't be an object! 
Conclusion:

The world is at heart dualistic! And our subject is radically different 
than our objects! 
So we need some 'non-physical principle' to explain this mysterious subject
(etc.)
Therefore God...(etc)

I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the writing in the Western 
tradition of philosophy, or science (it was invented after Leibniz died), 
or if you just got bogged down in the 1700s with Leibniz et al., but this 
stuff is kind of old potatoes these days. What is far more fruitful (and 
fascinating, in my opinion) is how the brain arrives at a notion of 
subjectivity in the first place and how the brain works-- knowledge 
inferred from things like brain lesion studies and studies into perceptual 
self-deception. 

When Craig talks about multisense realism, that is an original theory he 
has formulated to try to unify the two realms of external, perceived 
objects (sensates) and the subjective feeling of what it is to be alive 
(sensation). On one level, sure, he's wasting time, just like all 
philosophically enjoyable work is a waste of time. As Bertrand Russell 
said: If you enjoyed the time you were wasting, then you weren't wasting it 
after all. But on another level, he is trying to do something original, to 
think something through deeply. He uses other thinkers as tools in a 
toolkit. And while lots of people don't agree with him, they enjoy his 
efforts, because he takes the time to work through challenging concepts. 
When Bruno talks about the UDA, he is also trying to do something similar. 
He is trying to unify the subjective and objective components of reality at 
the deeper level of arithmetic. He has an argument. He has something new to 
say.  


You are not an original thinker, Roger! You have become enamored by a 
stupid artifact of language having to do with subjects and objects, and 
something that has been far more poetically described by Zen masters than 
you could ever hope to do, and you hit us over the head with it like a dead 
fish. 

You have not stumbled upon some Lovecraftian truth about being by reading 
Leibniz. Your readings of Leibniz do not do him justice. Leibniz was a 
penetrating and original thinker who arrived at the idea of monads because 
it was forced on him by circumstances of knowledge AT THAT TIME. God was 
virtually an axiom due to the overwhelming power of the church, minds and 
brains were thought distinct because neurology hadn't been invented, and 
science was struggling to break free from its mold in the form of natural 
philosophy and Aristotelian thinking. Leibniz's thoughts were a reflection 
of the state of knowledge that existed at his time. For you to go own using 
your own watered down version of Leibniz as some kind of epistemological 
panacea is a waste of time in a totally different sense. In the realm of 
new ideas about the question of mind and consciousness, it contributes 
nothing. As Leibniz scholarship, it is atrocious and betrays a fundamental 
lack of understanding of the role of history in constructing ideas. 

Finally, your apology says nothing about your constant political bear 
baiting in a forum that has no use for it. 

It's not even that you talk about Leibniz so much that makes you a 
crackpot. It's that you have so little to say of any real value. Even here, 
though, you might get some sympathy, if it weren't for the fact that you 
have betrayed your bigotry and intolerance countless times on this list. 
You strike me as a particularly odious fellow, one whose sole joy in life 
is ruining things for everyone else. 

There are plenty of places on the world wide web for people like you. Try 
4chan, for a start. But here...

TROLL!!! BE GONE!!!



On Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi tintner michael  and Albert Cororna, 
>
> I am accused of wasting peoples' time by constantly posting 
> here and elsewhere on the subject of Leibniz. 
>
> I do that because people are already wasting their time 
> by posting totally impossible views on what mind is or what consciousness 
> is, 
> supposedly the chief topics on these sites. 
>
> Why ?  The current model of the mind or brain 
> has no subject, only a description of a subject such as "subject". 
> which is not subjective but objective because it can be located in 
> spacetime 
> and described in word

Waster of Time, Life, and Mind: Roger Clough

[freqflyer07281972]

Clough could have done himself a favor by maybe thinking more and 
posting/talking less, or perhaps sharing his delusory thinking with a 
psychiatrist, rather than spewing it all over a mostly unmoderated internet 
reading list that he has ruined as a result. 

Crackpots seem often to be paranoid loners who are all to willing to waste 
everyone else's time on their own half-baked nonsense. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The stupid legacy of another crackpot, Roger Clough

[freqflyer07281972]

Ha! This, coming from the crackpot's favorite sock puppet. Gotta say, after 
having followed this list for, oh, I don't know, about 5 years, I find it 
amusing that 'spudboy100' always seems to evince more or less the same 
'views' as the crackpot, albeit in more watered down form (ya, I know, like 
things could be more watered down than the runny pablum that pours from 
Roger's mind, but whatever) It's kind of like reading Bishop Berkeley's 
"Three Dialogues," but infinitely worse...

On Friday, August 2, 2013 12:47:27 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> On DDT, because it hasn't been used in Africa to supress the Anopholes 
> misquito, millions have died. and yeah, Craig, it was to assuage 
> Progressive's sensibilities, so we won't have a "Silent Spring." It reminds 
> me of Mao's Great Leap Forward from 1958-62 which caused a famine in China 
> costing 36 million lives. Courtesy, the progressive policies of Mao. If 
> you're going to own environmental safety, then you're going to own the 
> failure of planning conducted by progressive orgs world-wide. This isn't a 
> matter of opinion, its a matter of fact. So much for the scientific 
> socialism that progressives have willingly inherited. 
>  
> Mitch
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Craig Weinberg >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 12:29 pm
> Subject: Re: The stupid legacy of another crackpot, Roger Clough
>
> No, it wuz the Libruls and their evil propaganda against delicious DDT. 
>
> On Friday, August 2, 2013 1:35:31 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: 
>>
>>  Because of Roger Clough, a less than mediocre Lutheran apologist who 
>> considers himself an astute interpreter of Leibniz, a formerly bright 
>> corner of the internet, the Everything List, has gone mostly dark due to 
>> the intellectual torpor and carelessness that seems to surround everything 
>> Clough says like the clouds of pestilence that surround the four horses of 
>> the apocalypse. 
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Roger is a rather lonely man who 
>> feels empty inside and yet also feels an irrational compulsion to flee this 
>> emptiness by trying hard to wrap it up in pseudo-profound mumbo jumbo and 
>> foist it on poor, unsuspecting readers of reading lists.
>>
>> RIP Everything List 
>>
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Leibniz, Leibniz, Leibniz.... oh, and did I mention Leibniz? Oh, yah, and monads and monism.

[freqflyer07281972]

Subjectivity is impossible to understand, so don't bother trying to 
understand it. 

The best things anyone ever said about subjectivity, consciousness, the 
universe, god, or really, basically anything else that you can think of, 
were ALL said by one man 500 years ago. His name was Leibniz. 

He was SO SMART!!! He invented calculus and everything. You know what 
we could do without calculus? Nothing, that's what. 

But the MOST IMPORTANT contribution he made was his earth-shattering 
discovery that we are all MONADS -- simple and indivisible substances that 
have both consciousness and extension as attributes. You see, monads are 
necessary to solve the mind-body problem, because since mind and body are 
two such different essences, there is really no other way to conceive of 
how they might interact other than assuming that there is just some kind of 
parallelism of operation between the two. After all, things are extended in 
space, everyone knows that, right? And minds are not extended anywhere, 
right? Everyone knows that too! So how the heck do the two essences seem to 
correlate? Well, GOD of course!! And if you don't believe that, well, 
you're going to hell. Even if you do believe that, you might go to hell 
anyway, if you are a jew or a liberal. 

Gee, I sure do love Leibniz. 

Remember, Leibniz, Monads, Monism, and Jews and liberals are bad. Oh, and 
God is great and he exists and everything.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

The stupid legacy of another crackpot, Roger Clough

[freqflyer07281972]

 Because of Roger Clough, a less than mediocre Lutheran apologist who 
considers himself an astute interpreter of Leibniz, a formerly bright 
corner of the internet, the Everything List, has gone mostly dark due to 
the intellectual torpor and carelessness that seems to surround everything 
Clough says like the clouds of pestilence that surround the four horses of 
the apocalypse. 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Roger is a rather lonely man who 
feels empty inside and yet also feels an irrational compulsion to flee this 
emptiness by trying hard to wrap it up in pseudo-profound mumbo jumbo and 
foist it on poor, unsuspecting readers of reading lists.

RIP Everything List 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Why Roger Clough's Posts are impossible to understand without severe brain damage.

[freqflyer07281972]

There are two different, yet equally fruitless ways of conceiving why Roger 
Clough bothers to post garbage all over what used to be a very bright and 
interesting list. 

One, he is old and retired, so he has little else to fill his days. 

The other reason is that he thinks his ideas have some kind of merit, and 
he self-deceptively thinks they smack of some brilliance that is opaque to 
others. 

According to Roger, everything that was ever thought or will be thought 
that had any merit was thunk up by Leibniz, a german fancy boy from the 
1500s who had a major hard-on for god-centric explanations of the universe. 
The fact that Roger has a major hard-on for fancy boys from the 1500s and 
has little of any original thinking to bring the the table himself should 
indicate to you the staleness of his thinking. 

Roger frequently makes vague pronouncements about 'what Leibniz thought,' 
punctuated by casual anti-semitism and political bear baiting. Rarely, 
though, is any of this backed up by sustained argument or evidence. It is 
as though you are witnessing a man in a fugue state, unaware that he makes 
no sense but believing strongly that he has the secret keys to the palace 
of universal knowledge.  


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

John Leslie's 'Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology'

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey List! (and in particular Bruno)
 
I have started re-reading the book I mention in the subject line -- after 
languishing in my bookshelf for a number of years, I pulled it out and 
began noticing the uncanny parallels it had with Bruno's UDA, although it 
reaches the same conclusions by some rather different means, notably; it 
postulates God as the thinker of all thoughts, envisioning god in a 
Spinozistic/Platonic light, and (something that from what I have read seems 
absent from the UDA) postulates the 'ethical requiredness' of God as being 
of enough force to bring him into being, thus short-circuiting the old " If 
God exists, what caused him to exist?" type of argument. 
 
I guess my general question is if any of you are familiar with Leslie's 
work and if so, to what degree, and also if so, to what degree do you find 
it plausible? 
 
Myself, I seem to be going through a kind of metaphysical conversion of 
sorts, one where, despite the multiplicity of minds/universes, there 
nevertheless seems to be an unspeakable and seemingly permanent unity to 
all things. I'm almost leaning towards Christianity, for the simple reason 
that it seems peculiar and particular enough to just be right and suitable 
to reality. (Reading CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' has swayed me in this 
way -- check it out, it's online). 
 
Forgive the brevity of my remarks... I'd unpack more if there was any 
interest expressed in what I was saying... perhaps I'm not saying anything 
that hasn't already been said.
 
Cheers,
 
Dan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Dancing in the flames

[freqflyer07281972]

You're a crackpot and have no business posting on this list and you 
contribute nothing of value. 

Please go away. 

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:33:28 PM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>   
> Christopher Hichens made his name 
> Attacking our dear Savior. 
> By now he's dancing in the flames 
> With Logic, that cute Devil's whore. 
>
> Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013  
> See my Leibniz site at 
> http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Chosen-ness

[freqflyer07281972]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:15:53 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:05:39 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Hi Craig, 
>>
>> Thank you for your very well considered point of view on my original 
>> post. I have some interjections that I would enjoy hearing a response to:
>>
>
> Thanks Dan, I'll try my best.
>  
>
>>
>> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:37:03 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:35:22 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I've been following this group a lot. I read it everyday and enjoy all 
>>>> of the wonderful stuff that comes up, even if some of it tends towards ad 
>>>> hominem, argument from authority, and petitio principi. Hey, we're humans, 
>>>> right? That means we get to make these fallacies, in good conscience or 
>>>> bad. 
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I wondered about what anyone/everyone thought about the notion 
>>>> of 'chosenness' as a way to understand where we are here in the world. It 
>>>> seems to me that concepts like MWI, Bruno's comp/mech hypothesis and the 
>>>> 'dreams of numbers' ideas of subjectivity, and even Leibniz's 'best of all 
>>>> possible worlds' don't actually do something like flee away from our 
>>>> everyday responsibility to accept the basic fact that we have been CHOSEN 
>>>> -- and when I say this, please don't immediately put a bunch of 
>>>> theological 
>>>> baggage on it. I'm not saying God chose this reality as opposed to 
>>>> another, 
>>>> although this might be a convenient shorthand. But what I am saying is 
>>>> that, out of all the staggering possibilities that we know exist with 
>>>> regards to our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our 
>>>> society, and even our individual selves, things could have very easily 
>>>> turned out to be different than they were. The fact that they have turned 
>>>> out in just this way and not another indicates this kind of chosenness, 
>>>> and 
>>>> along with it, comes a certain degree of responsibility, I guess? 
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that all the various 'everything' hypotheses (MWI, comp, 
>>>> Leibniz, and others) try to apply the Copernican principle to its breaking 
>>>> point. True enough, there is from a purely 3p point of view nothing 
>>>> special 
>>>> about our cosmic situation re: our planet and our sun. BUT, from an 
>>>> existential 1p point of view there is a huge privilege that we have, i.e. 
>>>> we are sentient observers, who love, feel pain, feel desire, and long for 
>>>> transcendence. 
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, the 3p point of view is a pure abstraction, kind of like 
>>>> eating the picture of a meal rather than the actual meal. How do we know 
>>>> what any kind of 3p account of truth would be? What would it even look 
>>>> like? A universe with no observers. A falling tree without a 
>>>> hearer/listener. This, to me, is nonsense. 
>>>>
>>>> Aren't things like MWI of quantum physics and comp hypothesis of 
>>>> universal dovetailer trying to, at a fundamental and existential level, an 
>>>> attempt to try to run away from the concreteness and absolute 'givenness' 
>>>> (gift) of the world as we find it? And isn't our role, in creation, as 
>>>> freely choosing beings (sorry, John Clark, free will is more than just a 
>>>> noise) to choose what will make other people with us now and in the future 
>>>> feel more love and less pain? And isn't this why we were chosen? 
>>>>
>>>> I'll go back to lurking now, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you might 
>>>> have on this reflection of mine. 
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I propose is that a complete description of the universe must 
>>> include:
>>>
>>> 1. The experience of significance.
>>>
>>> This speaks to the idea of chosen-ness, of choice, of free will, of 
>>> improbability as a quality as the subject of appreciation. 
>>>
>> There is a difference between choosing and being chosen. The f

Re: Does p make sense?

[freqflyer07281972]

Dear Bruno, 

I would like to know what 'doxastic models of consciousness' means, as well 
as what means "S4Grz" - I know Craig was the one who originally used the 
term 'doxastic models' but you seemed to know right away what that meant, 
so I'd like to know from your perspective what it means; moreover, I want 
to know S4Grz or be pointed towards an advanced level logic book so I can 
understand what that means. 

Finally, as a simple confirmation, I do assume that when you guys talk 
about Bp & p you mean the literal proposition "someone believes p & it is 
the case that it is p" -- if I don't get at least that, I should hang up my 
hat around here!

Cheers,

Dan

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:56:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making 
> an assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a 
> proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group 
> of sub-personal Beliefs (logarithmically nested as B^n) 
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> which we are arbitrarily considered as a given condition...but there is no 
> given condition in actual experience. 
>
>
> That's why we put Bp & p. To get the condition of 1p experience. It works 
> as we get a non nameable, and non formalisable notion of knowledge. S4 and 
> S4Grz do succeed in meta-formalizing a thoroughly non formalisable notion. 
>
>
>
>
> All experiences are contingent upon what the experiencer is capable of 
> receiving or interacting with.
>
> Any proposition that can be named relies on some pre-existing context 
> (which is sensed or makes sense). 
>
> The problem with applying Doxastic models to consciousness is not only 
> that it amputates the foundations of awareness,
>
>
>
> It does not for the reason above. Note that even Bp & p can lead to 
> falsity, in principle. Things get more complex when you add the non 
> monotonic layers, that we need for natural languages and for the mundane 
> type of belief or knowledge. Here, of course, with the goal of deriving the 
> correct physical laws; it is simpler to consider the case of ideally 
> correct machine, for which us, but not the machine itself can know the 
> equivalence.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> but that the fact of the amputation will be hidden by the results. In 
> Baudrillard's terms, this is a stage 3 simulacrum, (stage one = a true 
> reflection, stage two = a perversion of the truth, stage three = a 
> perversion which pretends not to be a perversion).
>
> The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the 
>> simulacrum *pretends* to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no 
>> original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no 
>> representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as 
>> things which they have no relationship to. Baudrillard calls this the 
>> "order of sorcery", a regime of 
>> semanticalgebra where all human 
>> meaning is conjured artificially to appear as a 
>> reference to the (increasingly) hermetic truth.
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
>
> This is made more important by the understanding that sense or awareness 
> is the source of authenticity itself. This means that there can be no 
> tolerance for any stage of simulation beyond 1. In my hypotheses, I am 
> always trying to get at the 1 stage for that reason, because consciousness 
> or experience, by definition, has no substitute.
>
> Craig 
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are 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?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Chosen-ness

[freqflyer07281972]

Hi Craig, 

Thank you for your very well considered point of view on my original post. 
I have some interjections that I would enjoy hearing a response to:

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:37:03 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:35:22 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> I've been following this group a lot. I read it everyday and enjoy all of 
>> the wonderful stuff that comes up, even if some of it tends towards ad 
>> hominem, argument from authority, and petitio principi. Hey, we're humans, 
>> right? That means we get to make these fallacies, in good conscience or 
>> bad. 
>>
>> Anyway, I wondered about what anyone/everyone thought about the notion of 
>> 'chosenness' as a way to understand where we are here in the world. It 
>> seems to me that concepts like MWI, Bruno's comp/mech hypothesis and the 
>> 'dreams of numbers' ideas of subjectivity, and even Leibniz's 'best of all 
>> possible worlds' don't actually do something like flee away from our 
>> everyday responsibility to accept the basic fact that we have been CHOSEN 
>> -- and when I say this, please don't immediately put a bunch of theological 
>> baggage on it. I'm not saying God chose this reality as opposed to another, 
>> although this might be a convenient shorthand. But what I am saying is 
>> that, out of all the staggering possibilities that we know exist with 
>> regards to our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our 
>> society, and even our individual selves, things could have very easily 
>> turned out to be different than they were. The fact that they have turned 
>> out in just this way and not another indicates this kind of chosenness, and 
>> along with it, comes a certain degree of responsibility, I guess? 
>>
>> It seems to me that all the various 'everything' hypotheses (MWI, comp, 
>> Leibniz, and others) try to apply the Copernican principle to its breaking 
>> point. True enough, there is from a purely 3p point of view nothing special 
>> about our cosmic situation re: our planet and our sun. BUT, from an 
>> existential 1p point of view there is a huge privilege that we have, i.e. 
>> we are sentient observers, who love, feel pain, feel desire, and long for 
>> transcendence. 
>>
>> Moreover, the 3p point of view is a pure abstraction, kind of like eating 
>> the picture of a meal rather than the actual meal. How do we know what any 
>> kind of 3p account of truth would be? What would it even look like? A 
>> universe with no observers. A falling tree without a hearer/listener. This, 
>> to me, is nonsense. 
>>
>> Aren't things like MWI of quantum physics and comp hypothesis of 
>> universal dovetailer trying to, at a fundamental and existential level, an 
>> attempt to try to run away from the concreteness and absolute 'givenness' 
>> (gift) of the world as we find it? And isn't our role, in creation, as 
>> freely choosing beings (sorry, John Clark, free will is more than just a 
>> noise) to choose what will make other people with us now and in the future 
>> feel more love and less pain? And isn't this why we were chosen? 
>>
>> I'll go back to lurking now, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you might 
>> have on this reflection of mine. 
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> What I propose is that a complete description of the universe must include:
>
> 1. The experience of significance.
>
> This speaks to the idea of chosen-ness, of choice, of free will, of 
> improbability as a quality as the subject of appreciation. 
>
There is a difference between choosing and being chosen. The former takes 
place on the level of the agent -- it is where 'free will' is exercised. 
The latter has no free will associated with it -- if you are chosen to go 
to war by your government, then you go, regardless of what you personally 
want (barring conscientious objection, but you get my meaning, I hope). Our 
free will, internally, may have many features of improbability and 
uncertainty, but the fact that we were 'chosen' (i.e. came into this world 
without any kind of vote or say or decision on our own parts) is a 
different matter.  

>
> 2. The experience of the significance of the idea of insignificance.
>
> I word "the significance of the idea of insignificance" in this convoluted 
> way to reflect the natural sequence in which the revelation of objectivity 
> has occurred across all human societies. Since as far as I know:
>
>a.  *al

Re: Why I love the Jews

[freqflyer07281972]

Is there a way Roger can be banned for a comment like that? Or should the 
moderators/admins of this list simply change it to the 'Everything-Nazi 
List'?

That's gotta be one of the dumbest and most offensive things I've ever read 
on this list. 

Roger, get a life. 

On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  
>  Why I love the Jews
>  
> I love the Jews because there would be no Broadway
> without the Jews, and I love Broadway almost more than anything. 
>  
> As verification, see:
>  
> http://video.pbs.org/video/2317965318
>  
>  [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 2/4/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: meditation

[freqflyer07281972]

Dear Telmo,

With my recent post fresh in my mind, I think I can engage with you a bit 
on the meaning and purpose of meditation. 

I think the main point of meditation is to see 'what is' for 'what it is.' 
Nothing more, nothing less. 

All 'other worlds, other universes, other possibilities' are phantoms of 
the mind. For a simple proof of this, just consider the proliferation of 
various 'multiverse' interpretations of quantum mechanics! Meditation, 
though, grounds a person into themselves and into their environment. 
Perhaps in doing so, it makes you stop wanting things to be different than 
what they are, especially yourself. For it is only when you accept exactly 
who you are that you can live and act genuinely in the world. And because 
we are all individual and unique (redundant, i know), we all have to find 
this out for ourselves, since no one elses prescription will work for us, 
just like no organ from just anybody will work for ourselves in a 
transplant. 

Just my opinion, take or leave,

Best wishes,

Dan

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:17:49 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of 
> "oneness with the universe", "non separation", etc.
>
> Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's 
> complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. 
> Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the 
> successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the 
> multi-verse?
>
> Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.
>
> Telmo.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Chosen-ness

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey everyone,

I've been following this group a lot. I read it everyday and enjoy all of 
the wonderful stuff that comes up, even if some of it tends towards ad 
hominem, argument from authority, and petitio principi. Hey, we're humans, 
right? That means we get to make these fallacies, in good conscience or 
bad. 

Anyway, I wondered about what anyone/everyone thought about the notion of 
'chosenness' as a way to understand where we are here in the world. It 
seems to me that concepts like MWI, Bruno's comp/mech hypothesis and the 
'dreams of numbers' ideas of subjectivity, and even Leibniz's 'best of all 
possible worlds' don't actually do something like flee away from our 
everyday responsibility to accept the basic fact that we have been CHOSEN 
-- and when I say this, please don't immediately put a bunch of theological 
baggage on it. I'm not saying God chose this reality as opposed to another, 
although this might be a convenient shorthand. But what I am saying is 
that, out of all the staggering possibilities that we know exist with 
regards to our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our 
society, and even our individual selves, things could have very easily 
turned out to be different than they were. The fact that they have turned 
out in just this way and not another indicates this kind of chosenness, and 
along with it, comes a certain degree of responsibility, I guess? 

It seems to me that all the various 'everything' hypotheses (MWI, comp, 
Leibniz, and others) try to apply the Copernican principle to its breaking 
point. True enough, there is from a purely 3p point of view nothing special 
about our cosmic situation re: our planet and our sun. BUT, from an 
existential 1p point of view there is a huge privilege that we have, i.e. 
we are sentient observers, who love, feel pain, feel desire, and long for 
transcendence. 

Moreover, the 3p point of view is a pure abstraction, kind of like eating 
the picture of a meal rather than the actual meal. How do we know what any 
kind of 3p account of truth would be? What would it even look like? A 
universe with no observers. A falling tree without a hearer/listener. This, 
to me, is nonsense. 

Aren't things like MWI of quantum physics and comp hypothesis of universal 
dovetailer trying to, at a fundamental and existential level, an attempt to 
try to run away from the concreteness and absolute 'givenness' (gift) of 
the world as we find it? And isn't our role, in creation, as freely 
choosing beings (sorry, John Clark, free will is more than just a noise) to 
choose what will make other people with us now and in the future feel more 
love and less pain? And isn't this why we were chosen? 

I'll go back to lurking now, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have 
on this reflection of mine. 

Cheers,

Dan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

[freqflyer07281972]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: 
> > Hey all on the list, 
> > 
> > Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this 
> teleportation 
> > business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish to simply 
> conclude from the 
> > entire argument that the correct substitution level is, in principle, 
> not only not 
> > knowable, but not achievable, which means: 
> > 
> > congratulations, you have found a convincing thought experiment proof 
> that teleportation 
> > is impossible in any cases greater than, say, 12 atoms or so (give me a 
> margin of error 
> > of about plus/minus 100) ... this is very reminiscent of the way that 
> time travel 
> > theorists use some of godel's closed timelike curve (CTC) solutions to 
> einstein's 
> > relativity to argue that time travel to the past is possible. The 
> problem is, the 
> > furthest back you can go is when you made the CTC, and yet in order to 
> make the CTC, the 
> > formal and physical conditions require that you already have to have a 
> time machine. 
> > This, of course, leads to paradox, because in order to travel in the 
> time machine in the 
> > first place, you have to have had a time machine to use as a kind of 
> mechanism for the 
> > whole project. 
> > 
> > In the same way, I think, does your ingenious UDA lead not to the 
> conclusion you want it 
> > to, (i.e. we are eternal numbers contained in the computation of some 
> infinite computer) 
> > but rather the less appealing conclusion that, perhaps, the 
> teleportation required in 
> > your entire thought experiment is simply impossible, for much of the 
> same reasons as 
> > time travel is impossible. 
>
> I don't see the parallel.  Can you spell it out? 
>
> Brent 
>
> Sure, I'll try.

Regarding time travel, there are many reasons for thinking that this is 
simply impossible. This comes from Sean Carroll's excellent book 'From 
Eternity to Here' -- I'm just gonna quote it to save time and get on to the 
teleportation part: 

"In 1967, theoretical physicist Robert Geroch investigated the question of 
wormhole construction, and he showed that you actually could create a 
wormhole by twisting spacetime in the appropriate way, but only if, as an 
intermediate step in the process, you created a closed time like curve. In 
other words, the first step to building a time machine by manipulating a 
wormhole is to build a time machine so you can make a wormhole." (p. 115)

Now, the analogy I see is this: A person wants to make a teleportation 
device. Well, in order to teleport object A to some location X, you need to 
specify the minimum amount of information that A must contain in order to 
continue having the experience of being A. This is what I take to be 'the 
substitution level,' (i.e. the level of fine-graining necessary to take a 
solid person, turn them into some kind of digital representation, send the 
digital representation at the speed of light across a vast distance, and 
then reconstitute them at the destination. My thinking is that, much like 
the wormhole, the substitution level, if known or achievable, would imply 
that we could build a teleportation device, but we'd need to confirm we had 
the right substitution level by building a working teleportation device -- 
in other words, it's a catch-22 - you need the teleportation device capable 
of dealing with the appropriate amount of information (I'm envisioning a 
super powerful computer combined with a beam splitter, and a super 
amazingly written piece of software - i.e. one must never crash!!! because 
if it does, there is the potential that the person you are teleporting 
could be lost in the ether!) and yet you need the substitution level to 
design and build the device properly.

In practice, from what I understand, they have been able to teleport 
systems of a couple or a few particles over 100 kilometres. Also, there's 
the no-teleportation theorem of quantum physics that would seem to suggest 
it's impossible, although I am aware that this doesn't strictly apply in 
the thought experiment, because the substitution level is something above 
the quantum level (am I right about this? I think it's implied by the 
condition that there is 'ambient organic material' in the container at the 
destination(s))

So why the big fuss over teleportation when the UDA is really all about 
establishing that comp is consistent and implies computational/machine 
metaphysics rather than materialism? Well, it would seem to me the entire 
argument stands or falls on this teleportation business, and if it's 

Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey all on the list,

Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this 
teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish 
to simply conclude from the entire argument that the correct substitution 
level is, in principle, not only not knowable, but not achievable, which 
means:

congratulations, you have found a convincing thought experiment proof that 
teleportation is impossible in any cases greater than, say, 12 atoms or so 
(give me a margin of error of about plus/minus 100) ... this is very 
reminiscent of the way that time travel theorists use some of godel's 
closed timelike curve (CTC) solutions to einstein's relativity to argue 
that time travel to the past is possible. The problem is, the furthest back 
you can go is when you made the CTC, and yet in order to make the CTC, the 
formal and physical conditions require that you already have to have a time 
machine. This, of course, leads to paradox, because in order to travel in 
the time machine in the first place, you have to have had a time machine to 
use as a kind of mechanism for the whole project. 

In the same way, I think, does your ingenious UDA lead not to the 
conclusion you want it to, (i.e. we are eternal numbers contained in the 
computation of some infinite computer) but rather the less appealing 
conclusion that, perhaps, the teleportation required in your entire thought 
experiment is simply impossible, for much of the same reasons as time 
travel is impossible. 

It's still an important result, but perhaps not as profound as you think if 
we admit that the teleportation required in your thought experiment is 
simply not possibly for purely naturalistic (and therefore not 
computational, or mechanistic) reasons. 

Looking forward to your response,

Dan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CJQdSUzCiTMJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Omnipotence vs. Omniscience in the context of UDA

[freqflyer07281972]

Dear Bruno and other loyal followers of the list,

I had a thought tonight -- half baked and somewhat vague, but nevertheless 
I thought relevant to your discussions here...

Is it not true, on the basis of what you laid out in Sane2004, that there 
is a necessarily inverse relationship between omnipotence and omniscience? 
For consider, the UDA, whatever it may be, has the infinite power to 
continue to crank out the algorithim. We, as admittedly self-consistent and 
yet ignorant of the fact of our self-consistency, have the ability to be 
omniscient (in the sense that we know the math that leads to our lack of 
omniscience and yet implies a universal unfolding of every possibility, all 
of which you will be there to witness) yet utterly unable to interfere with 
the omnipotence of the UDA, which continues cranking out its various 
arithmetical possibilities through its own omnipotence, utterly oblivious 
of the subjectivity (ies) involved. 

I'm looking forward to all of your responses for the pleasure of learning 
about this stuff...

Thanks for all being so smart and lucid, even when you do have opinions I 
don't necessarily agree with (looking at you, John Clark)

Cheers,

Dan 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TYkiuVIVuSIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

[freqflyer07281972]

Is anyone here aware of the following? 

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66654-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-in-doubt

Does it have implications for MW interpretations of quantum physics? 

I'd love to see comments about this.

Cheers,

Dan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4BAboNjZ7DoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey there,

I don't often post on this board, but I follow it quite frequently,
and perhaps I might inject a 'fresh voice' to rescue this thread of a
cul-de-sac of its own. It's essentially buddhist in nature rather than
mathematical or computational, so forgive me if I appear presumptuous,
or off topic, or whatever. It is this:

If you believe that there are persons, then the persons you believe in
will certainly die.

If you take yourself to be a person, then by implication, you too will
die. (That whole "Man is mortal; Socrates is a man; Socrates is
mortal" thing).

But if you realize that there has never been a person to begin with,
then your fears of death must evaporate, for what has never come into
existence surely can never go out of it.

What does it mean to "be a person"? Really, literally, from the
inside, 1p viewpoint? Yes, we can talk about it -- in terms of the
things we see, the mental states we are in, the sensations we are
having at the moment, and the meanings of those sensations, but is
there really a person there after this analysis is complete? Indeed,
can the analysis ever be completed?

Please, consider this.

Dan

On Nov 2, 9:38 pm, Nick Prince  wrote:
> On 1 November 2011 21:07, Russell Standish  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
> > > This is where I am coming from:
>
> > > I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
> > > between universes and that this happens very quickly (no time for us
> > > to notice).  So assuming the everett interpretation, there is no
> > > collapse and there are two consciousnesses  in equations like (3)
> > > representing "my consciousness" in two separate [infinite] bundles of
> > > universes). However they are no longer in a superposition (i.e. there
> > > is no interference between them going on, or as you say, off diagonal
> > > terms in the density matrix are virtually gone).  So at each
> > > differentiation me and my different consciousnesses diverge. We have
> > > the same history (memories) but different futures.
>
> > Just a note on terminological confusion. Superposition, AFAIK, just means a
> > linear combination of states. Therefore, two full decohered universes
> > are still in superposition, just no longer coherent.
>
> > Am I getting this wrong?
>
> > No I think it's me, I should have said "are no longer in a coherent
> > superposition" thanks please do pick me up on anything I get wrong, my QM
> > is a bit shaky.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

A Question...

[freqflyer07281972]

Hey There,

I love reading the posts on this group, and I find a lot of the ideas
mindblowing (and more than occasionally over my head) but I was
wondering if anyone could clarify this question(s):

1) Is QI implied by UDA and comp?
2) Is QI implied by ASSA/RSSA?

More generally, what is the existential/phenomenological import of all
these crazy (meant in a totally respectful way) ideas?

Curious,

Dan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Parmenides, Monism, Bits

[freqflyer07281972]

Hi There,

I've been an avid reader of this group for a long time, and I always
come here to try to think through the BIG questions... because I think
the everything theory is, really let's face it, about as big as things
get...

that being said, I wanted to contribute something, albeit a
fragment:

I was reading Plato's Parmenides tonight and started thinking about
monism and had an idea for a paper. It was essentially trying to
resurrect some kind of Parmenidian Monism in light of Quantum Physics
and its metaphysical relationship to existence, i.e. OUR existence, as
conscious, observing (yet also sometimes suffering and sick) beings...
please, if you like, read what I have come up with and give me your
thoughts. I think this idea of 'bit' is very easily importable into
any sort of UDA argument for the nature of reality, or even for any
everything theory in general.

Dan

A Way to Reconcile Parmenides' Monism with Contemporary Quantum
Physics (December 2008)

The 'bit' of existence.

The 'bit' of existence, the title of this writing, refers in many
simultaneous and synonymous ways in which a 'bit' can be.
Principally, the idea relies on the two strongest connonotations of
the word 'bit' today-- the notion used often in computer science of
the basic unit of information -- the bit-- and the other notion, used
in more folksy parlance, 'the bit...' as in the bit left over, the
small fragment of a whole that can never go away.  The first idea of
'bit' we will leave for later treatment. It is the second main
connotation of this word that I would like to look at first, for it is
I think in the key sense suggested by this use of the word, we can
reconcile Parmenides' metaphysical monism with empirical support,
based on a not at all unreasonable and yet also very stringent and
rigourous interpretation of quantum physics, one that must support
both the multiple worlds theory and the Copenhagen interpretation.
The 'bit' of existence, as a fragment of existence, is also THE
fragment of existence... it is the only one that has any 'light' to
illuminate consciousness.  It is very similar to the picture of a
laser and a cd, or for those older readers (including me), a record
needle and a record.  THIS fragment of consciousness that is reading
this note right now is "the bit of existence," meaning that they are
unique, singular, and utterly indestructible, because it is impossible
that the bit (fragment, part, single piece that is conscious of a
unified whole) could ever be squeezed out by any 'non-bit' or 'anti-
bit' (conceptual opposites conventionally, although I don't believe
they really exist, in support once again of Parmenides absolute
monism) or even 'nothing' (for nothing can only be what it is in
opposition to something, to being, to even 'a bit of existence') This
bit of existence is a fundamental fact of the universe, nay even
existence itself, for this universe is a function of the rules of
existence/non-existence, whatever they may be.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

James Higgo and "Four Reasons Why You Don't Exist"

[freqflyer07281972]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post to this group.  I find so many of the posts so
fascinating, but I am still immersing myself in the discussion, so
forgive the somewhat trivial direction of the present post.

I found a website memorializing James Higgo's thoughts on quantum
physics, quantum immortality,  etc.  From what I understand, he was a
prolific contributor to this group right up until is tragic and
untimely death (in this universe, at least) in 2001.  The page
http://www.higgo.com/ quantum/fourreasons.htm offers an intriguing
'synopsis' of a book called "Four Reasons Why You Don't Exist,"
including word counts for each chapter.

My question is: What is the status of this book? How much of it did
Higgo complete? Has it been published? A few searches in some obvious
and unobvious places did not uncover to me the existence of this
book.  Was it a work in progress, and who was handling the details?

Any information that anyone might have about this would be greatly
appreciated.

Cheers

Dan

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---