Re: The UD as a knotted string

2016-09-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Bruno,

   All of Lou's ideas have a common thread, but I wonder which one's you
have in mind.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 25 Sep 2016, at 16:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason why the UD string is *not* a 1d topological object?
>
>
> Computability theory is dimensionless (cf the SMN theorem and/or the
> recursive bijection).
>
> But that is for the 3p description.
>
> Some topology, and perhaps some notion of dimension can emerge from the
> structure on the UD imposed by the intensional variants of self-reference,
> and that is indeed the case for S4Grz1 and X1*, if you remember.
>
>
>
> If it is a 1d topological string, can it be knotted? If it can be knotted,
> can the reflexivity ideas of Lou Kauffman be applied?
>
>
>
> Hopefully. Open problem. In fact I expect some "knot" structure to arise
> from an abstract Temperley-Lieb Algebra related to the graded structure of
> the variants of Z1* and X1* (with []^n p & <>^m p & p and m < n: they have
> a similar quantization and quantum logical structure). But without some
> optimization of the G/G* theorem prover, this remains work for the future
> generation. Incidentally, this is more related with some other work by Lou
> Kauffman.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> For example: https://youtu.be/f_8eCnaxPzc?t=35m32s
>
> --
> You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/EWfG5GyN4qM/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


The UD as a knotted string

2016-09-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

Is there any reason why the UD string is *not* a 1d topological object? If 
it is a 1d topological string, can it be knotted? If it can be knotted, can 
the reflexivity ideas of Lou Kauffman be applied? For 
example: https://youtu.be/f_8eCnaxPzc?t=35m32s

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
I apologize but it seems that none of us has time to explain other people's
ideas to each other or to read their papers for ourselves.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 03:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
> process one algorithm and halt.
>
>
> or not halt. You limit yourself to halting computation.
>
> If each halting computation is simpler than arbitrary computations, it
> happens that the notion of halting computations is more complex than the
> notion of arbitrary computations.
>
> For example, there is no universal halting machine, and there is no UD
> computting all and only all halting computations.
>
> The only way to generate all halting computations necessitate the
> generations of all computations, the halting one and the non halting. There
> is no algorithmic means to separate the halting machine from the non
> halting one.
>
> yet, the halting computations, when you get them all, is what structure
> the "measure space", and that is exploited to get the measure one case by
> the intensional ("material") variant of the self-reference logic,
> restricted to the "halting computations", modeled by the true sigma_1
> sentences.
>
>
>
> Obviously I am not talking about Turing machines...
>
>
> ?
>
> We seem to miss a precise idea of what you are talking about, I'm afraid.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>>> theories
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>>
>>
>> ​Yes, sorta.​
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>>
>>
>> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>>
>>
>> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
>> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
>> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> You received this message becau

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>> theories
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>
> ​Yes, sorta.​
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>>
>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>
>
> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>
>
> ?
>
> Possibly in a quite novel non standard sense, but I'm afarid this could
> lead to confusion, especially with beginners.
>
> The UD is typically a program without input. You enter its code in the
> language of some universal machine, without giving it any input, and it
> runs forever, meaning it has no output.
>
> Extensionally, it is equivalent with the empty function from the empty set
> to the empty set (the unique element of 0^0 in set theoretical term, with 0
> identified with the empty set).
>
> Intensionally, assuming computationalism it is all activities of all
> machines in all locally consistent context.
>
> Some would like to add, all thoughts, but the thoughts remain stable and
> make possibly sense only on the infinities on which the First Person
> Indeterminacy operates.
>
> In the 3-1 picture, we can attach a consciousness to a 
> program/machine/3-p-representation...,
> it is often polite, but in the 1-p picture, that is, from the first person
> perspective "you" are related to an infinity (2^aleph_0) of computational
> histories. The UD "runs" you on all real oracles, notably.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
Can the UD diagonalize with almost all possible versions of itself? I have
forgotten some details...


-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
That's a good example, actually!

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Can you give an example?  What I'm led to think of is something like:
> % Add two and two
> print "4"
> halt
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
> process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing
> machines...
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>>> theories
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>>
>>
>> ​Yes, sorta.​
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>>
>>
>> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>>
>>
>> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
>> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
>> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>> Brent
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
> --
> You received this message because you 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 https://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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior 

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing
machines...

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>> theories
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>
> ​Yes, sorta.​
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>>
>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>
>
> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>
>
> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
> I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>

​Yes, sorta.​



>
>
> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>
>
> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an input
> there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>

​It has itself as an input. :-P​



>
>
> Brent
>
>This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires computational
> universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital Mechanism friendly.
> I am after Correct computers, not Universal computers. An example of such
> is the TauChain.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't "go", it
>> just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
   This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires computational
universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital Mechanism friendly.
I am after Correct computers, not Universal computers. An example of such
is the TauChain.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't "go", it
> just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
> coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
>> implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative
>> order of the threads.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
>> you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
>> labels, not the change itself.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>>>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>>>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>>>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>>>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>>>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>>>
>>> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point
>>> a process underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness
>>> unchanged; otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from
>>> the physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning
>>> consciousness can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>>>
>>>
>>> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
>>> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
>>> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
>>> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
>>> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
>>> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
>>> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
>>> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
>>> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
>>> sent in double exemplars.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
>>> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
>>> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
>>> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
>>> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
>>> that you can assume.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscrib

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if there have
a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds. What I have trouble
with DM is that it is not obvious where we get that plurality. I still
suspect that a weak version of Tennenbaum's theorem could solve this
problem, but we may lose Turing completeness. I would happily trade
completeness for correctness.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38160/computable-nonstandard-models-for-weak-systems-of-arithemtic/121252

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stathis,
>>
>>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
>> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
>> timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
>> requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
>> be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
>> processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
>>
>
> Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not
> change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the
> definition of supervenience.
>
>
>>
>>That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
>> entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
>> time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
>> moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
>> theory.
>>Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
>> could point me to?
>>
>
> If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
> necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental
> state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could
> have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there
> is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world
> is timeless.
>
>
> OK. In the 3-1 picture, where we look at the cloud of true (and prouvable)
> sigma_1 sentences, that seems quite reasonable.
>
> Before smoking salvia, I would have added: but *only* in the 3-1 picture.
> I would have defended the idea that in the 1p picture, the (1p) subjective
> experience is bounded to get some duration/subjective-time aspects, like
> Brouwer, Bergson, Dogen and other Heracliteans seemed to claim, and even
> like the universal machine seems to claim ([]p & p, the 1p,  leads to a
> logic of intuitionist time) but salvia succeeded in making me doubt about
> this. Salvia can be *quite* dissociative.
>
> Still today, I doubt that consciousness without time makes subjective
> sense, but I believe there might be an altered consciousness state where we
> feel to live the contrary.  Coming back from that state is a highly
> surprising and highly confusing experience. We can memorize only a piece of
> that coming back.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applic

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
> implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative
> order of the threads.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
> you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
> labels, not the change itself.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>>
>> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
>> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
>> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
>> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
>> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>>
>>
>> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
>> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
>> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
>> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
>> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>>
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
>> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
>> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
>> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
>> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
>> sent in double exemplars.
>>
>>
>> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
>> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
>> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
>> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
>> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
>> that you can assume.
>>
>> Brent
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received thi

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
Could it be that the concrete is the subjective reflection of the abstract?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stathis,
>>
>>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
>> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
>> timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
>> requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
>> be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
>> processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
>>
>
> Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not
> change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the
> definition of supervenience.
>
>
>>
>>That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
>> entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
>> time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
>> moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
>> theory.
>>Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
>> could point me to?
>>
>
> If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
> necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental
> state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could
> have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there
> is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world
> is timeless.
>
>
> Yet one subjective experiences duration and order.
>
> I think you've misplaced the concrete.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
labels, not the change itself.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
>
> Good point.
>
> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>
> Bruno
>
> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
> sent in double exemplars.
>
>
> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
> that you can assume.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-14 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Stathis,

   I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
   That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
theory.
   Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
could point me to?

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:13 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
>
> The starting point of computationalism is that you can replace your brain
> with a machine. If you can, then consciousness supervenes on a physical
> process of the machine. Thought A supervenes on process a and thought B
> supervenes on process B. A and B are unaffected if the timing, order or
> duration of a and b are changed. A and B are unaffected if there are copies
> of processes a and b up to an infinite number, as long as there is at least
> one of each. A and B are unaffected if a and b are paused and restarted at
> arbitrary points; we have then a1, a2, b1, b2 and A1, A2, B1, B2, but there
> is no subjective consequence to splitting A and B.
>
> If A and B are the observer moments and they can be rearranged and split
> up any way without changing the stream of subjective experience, then in a
> sense their being rearranged and split up is only meaningful because it can
> be defined for the physical processes on which they supervene.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-14 Thread Stephen Paul King
Speaking of time: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04759

A minimalist approach to conceptualization of time in quantum theory
H. Kitada <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Kitada_H/0/1/0/all/0/1>, J.
Jeknic-Dugic
<https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Jeknic_Dugic_J/0/1/0/all/0/1>, M.
Arsenijevic
<https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Arsenijevic_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>, M.
Dugic <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Dugic_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 15 Jun 2016 (v1 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04759v1>), last
revised 4 Sep 2016 (this version, v2))

Ever since Schrodinger, Time in quantum theory is postulated Newtonian for
every reference frame. With mathematical rigor, we show that the concept of
the so-called Local Time allows avoiding the postulate. In effect, time
appears as neither fundamental nor universal on the quantum-mechanical
level while being consistently attributable to every, at least
approximately, closed quantum system as well as to every of its
(conservative or not) subsystems.


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/13/2016 6:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On 14/09/2016 10:13 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
>
> That understanding of an "observer moment" appears to undermine the "Yes
> Doctor" scenario. The point of YD, it seems to me, is that one can replace
> oneself with a computer running some program -- the digital simulation at
> the basis of mechanism. Such a simulation, being a single computation, can
> be stopped and restarted at will without the observer being conscious of
> anything. If consciousness, or "observer moments", are intrinsically made
> up of an infinite number of threads, then this is not possible, and YD
> fails.
>
>
> Right, except I take the other fork.  I think you can stop and restart a
> consciousness - with a small gap; and if you can it contradicts Bruno's
> model of a single consciousness being a kind of statistical mechanics over
> UD threads.  That model is motivated by Everett in which there are many
> possible evolutions of the wave function which are equivalent at the
> classical level (where thoughts are instantiated).  But Everett and all QM
> assume a background time in which evolution takes place.  Bruno intends
> that physical time emerge from the model.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you 

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-13 Thread Stephen Paul King
"...an "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and
there is no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same
time"."

   I agree that there is no natural preference for a basis of the threads,
but ISTM that each Intelligence has its very own basis of biases which it
"determines" as its optimal preference in a moment by moment adaptation on
surfaces of constant time. There is some merit in the capacity to "look
ahead" over multiple moves, but from what I have studied so far, there are
rapidly diminishing returns when one is considering environments that are
not fixed - as real world environments tend to be.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-13 Thread Stephen Paul King
Not to rehash an old chestnut, but can a bit dance on an infinitesimal?

On Sep 13, 2016 10:22 AM, "Stathis Papaioannou"  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-10 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

   Is there any consideration of the duration of the period of time of the 
moment? Are they assumed to have vanishingly small durations?

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 7:44:16 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Charles Goodwin  > wrote: 
> > Hi everyone and everything, I was discussing comp and similar things 
> with 
> > Liz the other day and we came across a sticking point in what I think 
> (from 
> > memory) is step 7 of the UDA. Maybe you can help? 
> > 
> > I'm assuming AR, "Yes, Doctor" and so on. At step 7 we reach the point 
> where 
> > we assume that a physical Universal Dovetailer can be created and that 
> it 
> > runs forever, and ask what is the probability that my observer moments 
> are 
> > generated by it, rather than by my brain. 
> > 
> > Now ISTM that the UD will have an infinite number of possible programmes 
> to 
> > run, so even if it runs forever, how does it get on to the second step 
> in 
> > any of them? 
>
> Every program can be mapped to a natural number (intuitively, imagine 
> the binary encoding of a program in any Turing-complete language). 
> With something akin to the binary encoding (more abstractly, you can 
> do this to the state table of a Universal Turing Machine), program 
> size increases with their numbers. 
>
> Then the dovetailer proceeds like so: 
>
> - execute step 1 of program 1 
> - execute step 2 of program 1 
> - execute step 1 of program 2 
> - execute step 3 of program 1 
> - execute step 2 of program 2 
> - execute step 1 of program 3 
> ... 
>
> So it will only take finite time for all the computable programs of up 
> to a certain size to finish. 
>
> Telmo. 
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "Everything List" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an 
> > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> > Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

2014-11-08 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Alberto,

   Is there really a global thermodynamic arrow of time? We can only infer 
its existence based on theoretical organizations of data that we collect. 
AFAIK, all arrows in actual physical dynamics are local.

On Friday, November 7, 2014 5:26:40 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 if time is the thermodynamic arrow then then is meaningless the notion of 
 reversal of termodinamic arrow. 

 In which time the termodinamic arrow is reversed? Does it mean that the 
 time goes forward while termodinamic arrow goes backward? that contradict 
 the first assumption!!!



 2014-10-15 2:14 GMT+02:00 Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com 
 javascript::

 Hi,

I re-read S. Mitra's paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3825v2.pdf 
 again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible 
 measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the direction of 
 entropy flow in an area and not the entire universe.
The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite 
 definitions of locality out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size 
 in space, but may have a fixed size in space-time as location information 
 expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure 
 that would modulate decoherence. This decoherence thing, IMHO, needs to 
 be looked at carefully.
In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing 
 discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent 
 as a 1p world?

 -- 

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King


  -- 
 You received this message because you 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 javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




 -- 
 Alberto.
  

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


Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-27 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Brent,

  I recall reading a few papers that discussed this question. I think that
one can only obtain Hermiticity http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hermitian
with complex valued amplitudes. Self-adjointness does not obtain very
easily

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then
 that is what I show being still possible thanks to the presence of an
 arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the place we need the
 probabilities.


 I don't recall you having shown that.  Can you repeat it.  Do you show
 that the Hilbert space of QM must be over the complex numbers?  Or does
 your proof allow quaternion or octonion QM?

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-17 Thread Stephen Paul King
[SPK]

I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
 evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.

If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could
 implement them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so
 long as the wipe occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it
 is possible to retain the memory.
This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
 software can run on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
 be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
 is available to run on. In this way one can control the software without
 taking any direct action on it.


​[Telmo] ​
Interesting, I hope Bruno can comment on this.


[Bruno]
I am not sure I understand. By Church thesis all software can run on all
hardware or anything, once it is organized so that it is Turing Universal.
Then the distinction between hardware and software is relative above the
substitution level, and absolute below (matter emerging from the FPI sums
on infinities of computations). I think that Stephen might be valid,
though. If we were able to kill ourself mentally and instantaneously, we
might choose the selection, like in a WM duplication but when seeing Moscow
(and the temperature) you kill yourself, so that only the W-guy survives.
But nature has programmed in a way such that we can't easily do that, at
least in the mundane state of consciousness. Near death or in altered
consciousness state, I don't know. Perhaps. This needs much more research
to figure out.

Hi Bruno.

   You are taking a Platonic view and tracing out all distinctions of
computations (modulo complexity class) and hardware (modulo resource
availability), otherwise I thing we agree.


On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:48, Telmo Menezes wrote:



 On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Telmo,

You wrote: If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly,
 wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?
 

That is what I thought at first as well and concluded that it was just
 a misremembering or delusion. But I could not shake how well constructed
 the memory is. It was as if my memories somehow survived while all
 objective traces vanished. All the non-1p traces had vanished but all of
 the 1p content was still there.


 Ok, that is quite intriguing. Have you tried asking your previous
 interlocutors? Could you have dreamt it?

 I had some very vivid dreams when I was a kid that feel like real memories
 to me. I only assume they are dreams because of the content (a plush toy
 gaining life, being pushed out of a very tall building and things like
 that). Looking back I suspect we are born into a very psychedelic state,
 but that's another topic.

 I'm not trying to grill you. I find this really interesting so would like
 to know the details.



   I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
 evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.

If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could
 implement them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so
 long as the wipe occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it
 is possible to retain the memory.
This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
 software can run on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
 be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
 is available to run on. In this way one can control the software without
 taking any direct action on it.


 Interesting, I hope Bruno can comment on this.


 I am not sure I understand. By Church thesis all software can run on all
 hardware or anything, once it is organized so that it is Turing Universal.
 Then the distinction between hardware and software is relative above the
 substitution level, and absolute below (matter emerging from the FPI sums
 on infinities of computations). I think that Stephen might be valid,
 though. If we were able to kill ourself mentally and instantaneously, we
 might choose the selection, like in a WM duplication but when seeing Moscow
 (and the temperature) you kill yourself, so that only the W-guy survives.
 But nature has programmed in a way such that we can't easily do that, at
 least in the mundane state of consciousness. Near death or in altered
 consciousness state, I don't know. Perhaps. This needs much more research
 to figure out.



 So essentially the physical universe would be a type of consensus amongst
 infinite instantiations of a mind? I guess your experience could be called
 a reverse déjà vu or maybe a jamais vu.


 I ask we recount the votes!

 :)

 Bruno






This hypothesis makes sense to me as I am using a dualist ontology

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Telmo,

   You wrote: If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly,
wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?

   That is what I thought at first as well and concluded that it was just a
misremembering or delusion. But I could not shake how well constructed the
memory is. It was as if my memories somehow survived while all objective
traces vanished. All the non-1p traces had vanished but all of the 1p
content was still there.

  I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.

   If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could implement
them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so long as
the wipe occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it is
possible to retain the memory.
   This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
software can run on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
is available to run on. In this way one can control the software without
taking any direct action on it.

   This hypothesis makes sense to me as I am using a dualist ontology,
minds and bodies are not one and the same thing or process - I reject
Descartes' substance dualism - the isomorphism implied by the duality is
not between individual minds (logical structures/algebras) and brains
(topological spaces/groups), but between something more like quotient
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/5104/quotienting-a-set-by-an-equivalence-relation-such-that-the-natural-projection-is
of adjoint categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor_category.

   I can't find a good mathematical description of the concept yet...

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:



 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Telmo,

   One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We
 where discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really
 consequential. It didn't go anywhere as on of the persons said that I had
 to wait for his paper to be published for further information on his theory.
Thing is, now the only evidence that I can find that the events
 happened are in my memory. All of the emails and so forth are gone, as if
 they where wiped clean from our reality.


 Thanks Stephen.
 If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly, wouldn't it require
 that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?



 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

 Hi Stephen,

 On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@charter.net wrote:

 Hi Brent,

I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
 exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
 otherwise are some kind of divine intervention that saved my life. Could
 there be an explanation that is completely secular?


 Could it be explained by MWI + anthropic principle? You died in a large
 number of branches, in the ones where you survived something very unlikely
 necessarily happened?


 I am open to such, but its like arguing that something like the
 spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually happened but one does not have
 a collection of unimpeachable witnesses available.


Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite
 idea http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!


 I love this idea and I bet on its validity. That being said, how can you
 know you had such an experience? Could you elaborate?

 Cheers,
 Telmo.




 On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

 Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in
 the question of
 whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is
 that God is
 implicitly the god of theism, and is not one's reason for existence
 or the unprovable
 truths of arithmetic.

 Brent


  Original Message 



 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-
 wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/


 Gary Gutting: This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews
 about religion that I
 am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is
 Daniel Garber, a
 professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in
 philosophy and science in
 the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with
 a wrap-up column on
 the series.

 ...

 Daniel Garber: Certainly there are serious philosophers who would
 deny that the arguments
 for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my
 impression is that
 proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious
 discussion outside
 of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there,
 my sense is that the
 discussions are largely a matter

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Telmo,

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:



 On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Telmo,

You wrote: If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly,
 wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?
 

That is what I thought at first as well and concluded that it was just
 a misremembering or delusion. But I could not shake how well constructed
 the memory is. It was as if my memories somehow survived while all
 objective traces vanished. All the non-1p traces had vanished but all of
 the 1p content was still there.


 Ok, that is quite intriguing. Have you tried asking your previous
 interlocutors? Could you have dreamt it?

 ​It would have to be a persistent dream. I have not been able to locate
one of the two persons. It is as if they vanished... The other person, who
I will not name, is a well known physicist. ​



 I had some very vivid dreams when I was a kid that feel like real memories
 to me. I only assume they are dreams because of the content (a plush toy
 gaining life, being pushed out of a very tall building and things like
 that). Looking back I suspect we are born into a very psychedelic state,
 but that's another topic.


​I think that when we are very young, the massive plasticity of the brain
allows for it to have a wide spread over its possible worlds. Research
into children that have past life experiences may contain data useful to
explain this effect.


 I'm not trying to grill you. I find this really interesting so would like
 to know the details.


​Yeah, it is amazing stuff, but its very easy to deceive oneself.




   I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
 evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.

If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could
 implement them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so
 long as the wipe occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it
 is possible to retain the memory.
This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
 software can run on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
 be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
 is available to run on. In this way one can control the software without
 taking any direct action on it.


 Interesting, I hope Bruno can comment on this.


​Me too!​



 So essentially the physical universe would be a type of consensus amongst
 infinite instantiations of a mind?


​Yes. Exactly that! I define a reality in those terms: That which is
incontrovertible for some collection of mutually communicating observers.
  (Observers are anything whose observations involve the creation of
distinctions that make a difference to at least one other observer.)​



 I guess your experience could be called a reverse déjà vu or maybe a
 jamais vu.


​Interesting!​





This hypothesis makes sense to me as I am using a dualist ontology,
 minds and bodies are not one and the same thing or process - I reject
 Descartes' substance dualism - the isomorphism implied by the duality is
 not between individual minds (logical structures/algebras) and brains
 (topological spaces/groups), but between something more like quotient
 http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/5104/quotienting-a-set-by-an-equivalence-relation-such-that-the-natural-projection-is
 of adjoint categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor_category.

I can't find a good mathematical description of the concept yet...

 On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:



 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Telmo,

   One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We
 where discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really
 consequential. It didn't go anywhere as on of the persons said that I had
 to wait for his paper to be published for further information on his 
 theory.
Thing is, now the only evidence that I can find that the events
 happened are in my memory. All of the emails and so forth are gone, as if
 they where wiped clean from our reality.


 Thanks Stephen.
 If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly, wouldn't it
 require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?



 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

 Hi Stephen,

 On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@charter.net wrote:

 Hi Brent,

I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
 exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
 otherwise are some kind of divine intervention that saved my life. 
 Could
 there be an explanation that is completely secular?


 Could it be explained by MWI + anthropic principle? You died in a
 large number

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Telmo,

  One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We where
discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really consequential.
It didn't go anywhere as on of the persons said that I had to wait for his
paper to be published for further information on his theory.
   Thing is, now the only evidence that I can find that the events happened
are in my memory. All of the emails and so forth are gone, as if they where
wiped clean from our reality.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

 Hi Stephen,

 On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Hi Brent,

I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists
 something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are
 some kind of divine intervention that saved my life. Could there be an
 explanation that is completely secular?


 Could it be explained by MWI + anthropic principle? You died in a large
 number of branches, in the ones where you survived something very unlikely
 necessarily happened?


 I am open to such, but its like arguing that something like the
 spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually happened but one does not have
 a collection of unimpeachable witnesses available.


Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite idea
 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!


 I love this idea and I bet on its validity. That being said, how can you
 know you had such an experience? Could you elaborate?

 Cheers,
 Telmo.




 On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

 Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in
 the question of
 whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is
 that God is
 implicitly the god of theism, and is not one's reason for existence or
 the unprovable
 truths of arithmetic.

 Brent


  Original Message 



 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-
 wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/


 Gary Gutting: This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about
 religion that I
 am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is
 Daniel Garber, a
 professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in
 philosophy and science in
 the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a
 wrap-up column on
 the series.

 ...

 Daniel Garber: Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny
 that the arguments
 for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my
 impression is that
 proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious
 discussion outside
 of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my
 sense is that the
 discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion
 has gone out of
 the question.

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


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Spudboy,

   Not Boltzmann brains. Vaidman brains
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951!

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:23 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Aha! Now what of Boltzmann Brains and how this topic is undervalued by the
 intellects here.


 -Original Message-
 From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:30 pm
 Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God
 anymore?

   On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 wrote:

   I suggest to define God by either the physical universe OR what is at
 the origin of the physical universe,


  Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not
 omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
 full of doorknobs. And that is a great example of someone more than willing
 to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.

or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical
 universe


  Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a
 physical universe but you have said on this list that you don't.

With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible


  If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby
 Race every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.

John K Clark


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

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Brent,

   I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists 
something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are 
some kind of divine intervention that saved my life. Could there be an 
explanation that is completely secular? I am open to such, but its like 
arguing that something like the spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually 
happened but one does not have a collection of unimpeachable witnesses 
available.
   
   Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite idea 
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!

On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

 Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the 
 question of 
 whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is 
 that God is 
 implicitly the god of theism, and is not one's reason for existence or 
 the unprovable 
 truths of arithmetic. 

 Brent 


  Original Message  




 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/
  


 Gary Gutting: This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about 
 religion that I 
 am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is 
 Daniel Garber, a 
 professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in 
 philosophy and science in 
 the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a 
 wrap-up column on 
 the series. 

 ... 

 Daniel Garber: Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny 
 that the arguments 
 for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my 
 impression is that 
 proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious 
 discussion outside 
 of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my 
 sense is that the 
 discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion 
 has gone out of 
 the question. 



-- 
You received this message because you 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: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Stephen Paul King
​Hi John,

   Yo wrote: God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
full of doorknobs.​ Indeed, your existence is proof of this claim!

   Try harder not to project the consequences of being finite and human
onto something that you will never understand. Too be sure, I find that
those that religionists that push their personal beliefs onto others are
reprehensible, but it is the pushing and attempts to control the minds of
others that is evil, not the belief in what can not be rationally
explained.

   There is no replacement for 1p definiteness.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  I suggest to define God by either the physical universe OR what is at
 the origin of the physical universe,


 Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not
 omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
 full of doorknobs. And that is a great example of someone more than willing
 to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.

  or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical universe


 Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a physical
 universe but you have said on this list that you don't.

  With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible


 If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby Race
 every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.

   John K Clark



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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.


Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

2014-10-14 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

   I re-read S. Mitra's paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3825v2.pdf again
and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible
measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the direction of
entropy flow in an area and not the entire universe.
   The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite
definitions of locality out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size
in space, but may have a fixed size in space-time as location information
expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure
that would modulate decoherence. This decoherence thing, IMHO, needs to
be looked at carefully.
   In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing
discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent
as a 1p world?

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-19 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,

   I agree, this introduces the possibility that the inhibiting or
activation of gene aspect is the running of the particular algorithm
while the mutation and selection aspect might be seen as a process on the
space of algorithms.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Sep 2014, at 17:57, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Hi Brent,

Have you seen any studies of the Ameoba dubia
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium that look into what
 their genome is expressing?
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933061/  seems to suggest to
 me the possibility that the genome is acting as a brain!


 Interesting. But in my opinion, you don't need dynamical change in the
 genome (deletion or addition of genes). The usual regulation (inhibiting
 or activation of gene) is enough.

 Bruno





 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 8/31/2014 9:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote:

 As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the
 baby
 needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
 consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature - that
 is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and
 with
 other people (i.e. assimilate culture).

  This actually supplies a good reason for why we should find ourselves
 in a regular, lawlike universe. We can get by with a smaller genome,
 and learn the rest of the stuff that makes up our mental life, which
 is a more likely scenario (even evolutionary speaking) than having a
 large genome directly encoding our knowledge.

 Of course, that is only possible if in fact the environment is regular
 enough to be learnable.


 So that's why Amoeba dubia has a genome 200x bigger than ours?  It must
 live in a very irregular environment.

 Brent


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-19 Thread Stephen Paul King
The process does seem, if we think of it this way, to be intelligent, yes.
But this is a definition of intelligence that most would not consider: An
intelligence is the collection of behaviors of a system that tend to
increase the number of possible future states.
   My wording doesn't quite look right...

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does this mean evolution is intelligent but (probably) not conscious?



 On 20 September 2014 03:01, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Dear Bruno,

I agree, this introduces the possibility that the inhibiting or
 activation of gene aspect is the running of the particular algorithm
 while the mutation and selection aspect might be seen as a process on the
 space of algorithms.

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Sep 2014, at 17:57, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Hi Brent,

Have you seen any studies of the Ameoba dubia
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium that look into what
 their genome is expressing?
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933061/  seems to suggest
 to me the possibility that the genome is acting as a brain!


 Interesting. But in my opinion, you don't need dynamical change in the
 genome (deletion or addition of genes). The usual regulation (inhibiting
 or activation of gene) is enough.

 Bruno





 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 8/31/2014 9:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote:

 As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the
 baby
 needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
 consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature -
 that
 is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and
 with
 other people (i.e. assimilate culture).

  This actually supplies a good reason for why we should find ourselves
 in a regular, lawlike universe. We can get by with a smaller genome,
 and learn the rest of the stuff that makes up our mental life, which
 is a more likely scenario (even evolutionary speaking) than having a
 large genome directly encoding our knowledge.

 Of course, that is only possible if in fact the environment is regular
 enough to be learnable.


 So that's why Amoeba dubia has a genome 200x bigger than ours?  It must
 live in a very irregular environment.

 Brent


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
 of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only

Re: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe

2014-09-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
Right, but that would make Hawking's claim even more ridiculous! An
exception to it would not be ever seen

   Has he lost it? I do think so... Its a sad day. :_(


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 For the second question, as Brent pointed out physical quantities go to
 infinity (or more realistically to the Planck scale) in black hole
 formation. In other words they probably go as high as the universe will
 allow - but since they're (normally?) inside an event horizon, we won't be
 able to observe the results, even in principle.


 On 9 September 2014 17:46, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Hi,

Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you
 explain it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of
 black holes?


 On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim
 that the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and
 potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum
 expanding out at the speed of light?

 Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture
 of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?



 Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times
 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-says-stephen-hawking/story-fnb64oi6-1227050481513?nk=2d907a0ab52572e7c9439c4e797e761e
  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
 Stephen
 Hawking http://www.upi.com/topic/Stephen_Hawking/ claims the Higgs
 Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe. He
 claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space
 and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we wouldn't see it
 coming.

 The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter
 its mass. The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might
 become metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV), Hawking
 writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible
 the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at
 the speed of light.

 The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low.
 According to Hawking, A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would
 be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic
 climate. The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still
 believe it is possible



 Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-
 Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-
 Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK

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


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N640uTPeGn8/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe

2014-09-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
Could it be that he is playing a joke on us? ...is unlikely to be funded...
Really!? What could be used to pay for such? Not enough mass in the Solar
system by my count.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 For the second question, as Brent pointed out physical quantities go to
 infinity (or more realistically to the Planck scale) in black hole
 formation. In other words they probably go as high as the universe will
 allow - but since they're (normally?) inside an event horizon, we won't be
 able to observe the results, even in principle.


 On 9 September 2014 17:46, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Hi,

Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you
 explain it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of
 black holes?


 On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim
 that the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and
 potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum
 expanding out at the speed of light?

 Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture
 of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?



 Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times
 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-says-stephen-hawking/story-fnb64oi6-1227050481513?nk=2d907a0ab52572e7c9439c4e797e761e
  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
 Stephen
 Hawking http://www.upi.com/topic/Stephen_Hawking/ claims the Higgs
 Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe. He
 claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space
 and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we wouldn't see it
 coming.

 The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter
 its mass. The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might
 become metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV), Hawking
 writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible
 the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at
 the speed of light.

 The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low.
 According to Hawking, A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would
 be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic
 climate. The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still
 believe it is possible



 Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-
 Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-
 Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK

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


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N640uTPeGn8/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe

2014-09-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Brent,

   Yes, but then we have to deal with the very real possibility that we
exist within a Black hole! How do we align the Baryon decay with we live
in a black hole? The latter is much most plausible, IMHO.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:51 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  If the Higgs field decays the effect would be to make the quarks
 massless and protons and neutrons would disintegrate.  But inside a black
 hole it would have no effect on the rest of the universe.

 Brent


 On 9/8/2014 11:45 PM, LizR wrote:

 For the second question, as Brent pointed out physical quantities go to
 infinity (or more realistically to the Planck scale) in black hole
 formation. In other words they probably go as high as the universe will
 allow - but since they're (normally?) inside an event horizon, we won't be
 able to observe the results, even in principle.


 On 9 September 2014 17:46, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Hi,

 Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you
 explain it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of
 black holes?


 On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

  What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim
 that the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and
 potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum
 expanding out at the speed of light?

 Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture
 of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?



 Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times
 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-says-stephen-hawking/story-fnb64oi6-1227050481513?nk=2d907a0ab52572e7c9439c4e797e761e
  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
 Stephen
 Hawking http://www.upi.com/topic/Stephen_Hawking/ claims the Higgs
 Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe. He
 claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space
 and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we wouldn't see it
 coming.

 The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter
 its mass. The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might
 become metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV), Hawking
 writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible
 the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at
 the speed of light.

 The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low.
 According to Hawking, A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would
 be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic
 climate. The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still
 believe it is possible



 Read more:
 http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK

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


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


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N640uTPeGn8/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you

Re: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe

2014-09-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
Or maybe Hawking is messing with us. He is well known for his pranks


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  I don't think you can get energies like 10^11Gev even in supernova.


 I don't know about a supernova but we know for a fact that you can get
 energies like that somewhere. The record energy for a cosmic ray particle
 (probably a proton) was detected in 1991 with a energy of 3*10^11 Gev,
 that's 40 million times as much energy as what he LHC in Switzerland can
 produce. We can only speculate on how it was made but we do have some idea
 where and when. According to something called the CZK limit cosmic rays
 with energy greater than 5*10^10 Gev can't be coming from a place further
 away than 160 million light years because if they were then interactions
 with the cosmic microwave background radiation would slow them down and rob
 them of energy.  Cosmically speaking 160 million light years is pretty
 close and 160 million years is pretty recent.

  The only place I can think of that might produce that kind of energy is
 approaching the singularity of a black hole.


 Or maybe the decay product of some very exotic particle unknown to
 science  was made in the first nanosecond after the Big Bang and has only
 decayed recently into a super fast ultra energetic proton. Or maybe it came
 from something even stranger.

  John K Clark




  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N640uTPeGn8/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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.


Fish can communicate and UNDERSTAND each other!

2014-09-08 Thread Stephen Paul King
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/08/when-your-preys-in-a-hole-and-you-dont-have-a-pole-use-a-moray/

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe

2014-09-08 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

   Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you explain 
it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of black 
holes?
  

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim that 
 the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and 
 potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum 
 expanding out at the speed of light? 

 Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture 
 of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?

  

 Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times 
 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-says-stephen-hawking/story-fnb64oi6-1227050481513?nk=2d907a0ab52572e7c9439c4e797e761e
  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
 Stephen 
 Hawking http://www.upi.com/topic/Stephen_Hawking/ claims the Higgs 
 Boson particle, a.k.a. the God particle, could end the universe. He 
 claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space 
 and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we wouldn't see it 
 coming.

 The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter its 
 mass. The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might become 
 metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV), Hawking 
 writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible 
 the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at 
 the speed of light.

 The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low. 
 According to Hawking, A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would 
 be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic 
 climate. The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still 
 believe it is possible



 Read more: 
 http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK


-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-07 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Chris,

   Does it seem to you that there are two aspects to communication:

1) the physical aspects of the signaling: physically detectable
2) the computational interpretation of the signals: logically inferable?

   We have no idea if plants have interpretation of the chemical signals in
addition to the mere presence and/or absence of such, but presence/absence
is sufficient, IMHO, to satisfy 2).


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes
 *Sent:* Saturday, September 06, 2014 1:27 PM
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 Chris: and why on Earth would you exclude the communication of plants etc.
 from the broad meaning of language? (They don't have a blabbermouth).

 JM



 I personally don’t, but probably most people would not think of this
 system of communication as being a form of language…. Or at least that is
 what I thought; maybe I am not giving most people enough credit.

 -Chris



 On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:13 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication
 once languages emerge...



 Want to point out that important communication occurs in nature without
 what we would commonly term language being used. For example, it appears
 there exists a widespread intra  trans-species chemical based signaling
 system operating amongst plants species (at least amongst those studied),
 where they are communicating the presence of pathogens and predator species
 to other nearby plants, in a fairly specific manner that seems to be
 “understood” by other plants who respond to these specific chemical signals
 in a timely and appropriate manner.

 -Chris

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



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

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-05 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi LizR,

   Exactly, we are the 'same sort of thing'. :-) It seems that only scifi
writers actively explore this idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_Lifemaker. The academics are
stuck in the mode of thinking that somehow 'intelligence' can only arise if
intentionally created by other 'intelligence'. It reminds me of the debates
in the 19th century about the origin of life.


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 7:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 16:42, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Nah, I get what you mean. Connecting an AGI to a body is one way of
 teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that?


 I have no idea what we want, I was just presenting a thought experiment.
 My basic view is that there is not necessarily any difference between a
 suitably trained/brought up AI and a person - why would there be? Logically
 we're the same sort of thing.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-05 Thread Stephen Paul King
AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources, no
conflict need arise...


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:


  Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we know
 this from biology.


 Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter than
 one celled zygotes.


  What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
 (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.


 I also don't understand the people who talk about a friendly A I when
 what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and place
 our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not possible to
 consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than you
 are.

   John K Clark


 You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
 conflict with ours.

 It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason, you'd
 have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our interests. Even
 if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI would be friendly
 (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than us would behave in
 unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem contrary to our interests,
 simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the reasoning (which
 might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).

 Terren

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-05 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Terren,

  Ah, nice link. Thank you. Does the assumption of a finite and fixed set
of resources necessarily match the real world?

   If an AGI's computation can occur on any active and evolving
network of sufficient complexity, would the paperclip argument hold?

ISTM that overall resources are finite, bounded and fixed only within
snapshots of patches of the universe. Given eternal inflation and the
potential for endless forms of resources, I find the paperclip argument
unconvincing.



On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:

 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources,
 no conflict need arise...


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:


  Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we
 know this from biology.


 Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter
 than one celled zygotes.


  What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level
 AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.


 I also don't understand the people who talk about a friendly A I when
 what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and place
 our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not possible to
 consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than you
 are.

   John K Clark


 You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
 conflict with ours.

 It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason, you'd
 have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our interests. Even
 if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI would be friendly
 (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than us would behave in
 unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem contrary to our interests,
 simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the reasoning (which
 might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).

 Terren

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

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


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-05 Thread Stephen Paul King
One other remark.

From the previously linked article:

This may seem more like super-stupidity than super-intelligence. For
humans, it would indeed be stupidity, as it would constitute failure to
fulfill many of our important terminal values, such as life, love, and
variety. The AGI won't revise or otherwise change its goals, since changing
its goals would result in fewer paperclips being made in the future, and
that opposes its current goal. It has one simple goal of maximizing the
number of paperclips; human life, learning, joy, and so on are not
specified as goals. An AGI is simply an optimization process—a goal-seeker,
a utility-function-maximizer. Its values can be completely alien to ours.
If its utility function is to maximize paperclips, then it will do exactly
that.

   Not being capable of altering goals is indeed dumb!


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:

 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources,
 no conflict need arise...


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:


  Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we
 know this from biology.


 Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter
 than one celled zygotes.


  What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level
 AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.


 I also don't understand the people who talk about a friendly A I when
 what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and place
 our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not possible to
 consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than you
 are.

   John K Clark


 You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
 conflict with ours.

 It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason, you'd
 have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our interests. Even
 if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI would be friendly
 (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than us would behave in
 unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem contrary to our interests,
 simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the reasoning (which
 might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).

 Terren

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

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


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-05 Thread Stephen Paul King
There is also the case of many AGI competing,. cooperating and colluding
with each other...


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I think it would be a purely academic exercise (as in, disconnected from
 any practical consequences) to argue about the kinds of AGIs that could
 have access to infinite resources.

 Rejecting Yudkowsky's argument on the basis that reality *might* be
 infinite seems like an odd move to me. If you feel, as Yudkowsky does, that
 the fate of humanity rests on our ability to produce a friendly AI before
 someone else produces an unfriendly one, then such esoteric objections miss
 the point entirely. Even if resources were infinite, it doesn't follow that
 we'd be safe from a paperclip maximizer, and anyway, we have no good reason
 to suppose resources are infinite in any way that bears on the potential
 realities of AGI.


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Terren,

   Ah, nice link. Thank you. Does the assumption of a finite and fixed set
 of resources necessarily match the real world?

If an AGI's computation can occur on any active and evolving
 network of sufficient complexity, would the paperclip argument hold?

 ISTM that overall resources are finite, bounded and fixed only within
 snapshots of patches of the universe. Given eternal inflation and the
 potential for endless forms of resources, I find the paperclip argument
 unconvincing.



 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same
 resources, no conflict need arise...


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
  wrote:


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
  wrote:


  Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we
 know this from biology.


 Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter
 than one celled zygotes.


  What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level
 AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.


 I also don't understand the people who talk about a friendly A I
 when what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and
 place our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not 
 possible
 to consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than 
 you
 are.

   John K Clark


 You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
 conflict with ours.

 It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason,
 you'd have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our
 interests. Even if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI
 would be friendly (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than
 us would behave in unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem 
 contrary
 to our interests, simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the
 reasoning (which might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).

 Terren

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
 of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 You received this message because you 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

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-05 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi LizR,


   Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that
there are consequences (short and long terms) for dumb behavior might be
a good idea. One way of doing this is ensuring that they can not be
self-immortal and must reproduce to recover a form of immortality of their
genome - ummm, what would be the correct term here? - There is no better
reward than continued survival

  I have read everything by Herbert that I could find. Yes, Destination
Void is a must. Heinlein 's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress is good as well
as it shows what we would like in an AGI system.



On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't know how you could do this in practice, but nature has proved that
 intelligent beings can have their behaviour towards other beings
 constrained in various ways. An obvious example is that we care for our
 children. If one could built (or otherwise cause to come into being) an AI
 with a reward mechanism, and specify that caring about human beings would
 be one of the ways to trigger it, one *might* be able to make a
 benevolent God...

 (Of course Asimov's 3 Laws say exactly this, though in more robotic
 terms. And one might read Frank Herbert's Destination Void carefully
 before embarking on this project...)

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: my artificial scientist

2014-09-05 Thread Stephen Paul King
Very Nice Telmo! 

   We need to talk! I am working with Marius Muliga and Lou Kauffman and 
others on a form of 'software computer that might run on top of your 
networks! See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4333

On Friday, September 5, 2014 8:20:20 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:

 Hi all,

 Since people have been talking about AI, creativity etc., I take the 
 liberty of doing a bit of self-promotion.

 My paper Symbolic regression of generative network models has finally 
 been published and it's open access. Here's a blog post about it:


 http://www.telmomenezes.com/2014/09/using-evolutionary-computation-to-explain-network-growth/

 and the direct link:

 http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140905/srep06284/full/srep06284.html

 The idea of this work is to use genetic programming to evolve plausible 
 bottom-up network generators. In a sense, the system automatically looks 
 for and validates theories on how a given network was formed.

 Cheers,
 Telmo.


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


Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

   I am looking for any papers on the effects of allowing neural networks
to couple to each other


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:16 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 17:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing
 to be cost-free then it would make no difference, otherwise

 (In Childhood's End the *Overlords *were the race who helped other
 races to join the Overmind; they were unable to do so themselves, for some
 reason.) But leaving that aside, I'm not sure your question makes sense
 when you're dealing with a transcendental state of existence. How do you
 work out the costs when you're talking about of synergy, where the sum of
 the parts is exceeded by the totality, perhaps exceeded by an astronomical
 factor? It seems like asking if there is a cost that would stop single
 celled animals wanting to form multicellular ones. Almost certainly there
 is - they give up their autonomy, become specialised, and may be sacrificed
 for the good of the organism ... etc. But that doesn't mean we don't, or
 shouldn't, exist, or that we should want to be a trillion bacteria.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Telmo,

   What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
(many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
exactly! A mind can only function in effective isolation. Control disallows
this as control involves coupling to the mechanisms of mind.


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:




 On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 3, 2014  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

  a human baby is a plastic template for the individual to emerge in


 And those 1000 lines of Lisp are a plastic template for the Jupiter Brain
 to emerge in.



 Precisely. Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped --
 we know this from biology.

 From our AI adventures so far, it is possible to gather that this
 bootstrapping can be done affording more or less degrees of freedom.
 Computer chess players are bootstrapped with little freedom, they can only
 play chess using a pre-defined algorithm. Genetic programming affords more
 freedom -- it can generate its own programs. And so on.

 What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
 (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.

 Telmo.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

   OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)...


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:




 On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
 (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.


 You can't, of course. Every parent discovers that.


 So it's not like playing the Sims? :)


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi LizR,

   I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
aware that we exist?


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 00:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi,

OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)...

 Depending on how clever the AI is. Proteus IV and Colossus found ways to
 stop people pulling the plug (unlike HAL).

 And of course you only have limited control with children, who will also
 find a way around restrictions if they have enough incentive.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
How big is the universe that a bacteria or insect interacts with? If the
objective universe does not need to exist outside of what can be
measured, why bother having to sim it?


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:59 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 The entire universe as a sim? Could even an AI handle it?


 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail



 -Original Message-
 From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Thu, Sep 4, 2014 05:16 AM
 Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us





  On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR  lizj...@gmail.com
 lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

   On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes  te...@telmomenezes.com
 te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

   What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
 (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.


  You can't, of course. Every parent discovers that.


  So it's not like playing the Sims? :)


--
 You received this message because you 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
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
 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
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
 https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
But you seem to assume that it has awareness of people beyond the sensor
data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the property
of people come from.
   Consider the case were the Google thing discovered cats from
processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpretation of what a
cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and
other transformations) in many different videos.

   I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything sees the
same world as oneself, and this could very well not be true! I have been
studying machine learning and anything AGI related in the literature. It is
common knowledge among the experts in that field that the machines
absolutely do not see the same world as we do! It is a very hard problem
figuring out how to get the machines to interpret the data patterns in ways
consistent with how we do.


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi LizR,

I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
 aware that we exist?


 Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated by
 people then it will at least be aware that there is something feeding it
 input, and it will probably make the same deductions about that something
 that we make about other people. If it occurs through some sort of
 spontaneous generation, if that's possible, it may not be aware that we
 exist. Did you have a particular scenario in mind?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams, but
it does not address my question: How does the AGI come so interprete those
data streams in a way that is compatible with ours?

   If we build the robot body with EMF exitation sensors that operate in
the same range as ours and with sensors for atmospheric pressure wave
sequences as our ears, etc. Then maybe it might experience a world like
ours, but how can we be sure?

   This is the same question as: How can I be sure that your experience of
Blue is the exact same as mine? I have tried to build a bisimulation
argument that might show this but it has not worked very well at all. It is
frustrating


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 By the way, one possible scenario would be that the AI is provided with a
 body - we could imagine that it's attached via radio, say, to an android
 that is apparently human. To make this scenario deliberately extreme, for
 the sake of argument, if the AI only interacts with the world via this
 android, it might not (at least in a Philip K Dick short story) even
 realise it isn't just another human, like the ones it interacts with every
 day. In this particular scenario, it seems very unlikely it wouldn't be
 aware that other people existed.

 (Excuse me, I have to go AFK for a bit. I need to recharge my batteries...)



 On 5 September 2014 13:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi LizR,

I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
 aware that we exist?


 Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated by
 people then it will at least be aware that there is something feeding it
 input, and it will probably make the same deductions about that something
 that we make about other people. If it occurs through some sort of
 spontaneous generation, if that's possible, it may not be aware that we
 exist. Did you have a particular scenario in mind?


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
Cool! Terren, you grok what I'm trying to say. Thank you!!! We are freaking
AGI ourselves, operating machines made with biomolecules...

   The big realization that I have had is that we have no means to
determine that the content of experience of any other AGI matches ours. All
that we can figure is that we can somethings communicate effectively and
get along for a while. :-)


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:

 That's all we do... process sensor data and make complicated inferences
 about those features of our experience we refer to as people (and
 everything else). Of course, we undergo a great deal of training to get
 there, and much of the training is done by people. To Liz's point,
 purposefully designed AI might well also be trained by people, or at least,
 people would comprise a significant part of its training. At the end of the
 day, we are just AGIs with a biological substrate, with some stuff
 hardwired in by evolution, and a cultural program that inculcates in us
 some very specific and often strange ideas about identity, reality at
 large, and what our goals ought to be.

 To your point (and mine, earlier), AGIs are likely to construct a
 worldview that is significantly different from ours, for lots of reasons,
 but surely that doesn't mean it will be unaware of people. It may model
 them (and everything else) differently than we do, but I see no reason to
 believe for instance that we couldn't carry on a conversation with an AI of
 sufficient cognitive ability (and the motivation to do so).

 Terren


 On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 But you seem to assume that it has awareness of people beyond the
 sensor data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the
 property of people come from.
Consider the case were the Google thing discovered cats from
 processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpretation of what a
 cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and
 other transformations) in many different videos.

I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything sees the
 same world as oneself, and this could very well not be true! I have been
 studying machine learning and anything AGI related in the literature. It is
 common knowledge among the experts in that field that the machines
 absolutely do not see the same world as we do! It is a very hard problem
 figuring out how to get the machines to interpret the data patterns in ways
 consistent with how we do.


 On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
  wrote:

 Hi LizR,

I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
 aware that we exist?


 Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated
 by people then it will at least be aware that there is something feeding it
 input, and it will probably make the same deductions about that something
 that we make about other people. If it occurs through some sort of
 spontaneous generation, if that's possible, it may not be aware that we
 exist. Did you have a particular scenario in mind?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
I agree, but I strongly suspect that one does not program an AGI, we
would grow it and teach it


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 15:13, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 But you seem to assume that it has awareness of people beyond the
 sensor data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the
 property of people come from.


 I'm not assuming it just happens. I'm assuming it's a useful way for any
 perceiver to divide up the world, especially if it has to interact with
 that world. Given that what really exists are quantum fields, or whatever,
 our internal model of the world is presumably the most useful one evolution
 could come up with. It seems likely AIs would have to either develop or be
 pre-programmed with something simliar in order to interact with the world.


Consider the case were the Google thing discovered cats from
 processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpretation of what a
 cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and
 other transformations) in many different videos.


 I am assuming an AI is more intelligent that this, certainly.


I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything sees the
 same world as oneself, and this could very well not be true! I have been
 studying machine learning and anything AGI related in the literature. It is
 common knowledge among the experts in that field that the machines
 absolutely do not see the same world as we do! It is a very hard problem
 figuring out how to get the machines to interpret the data patterns in ways
 consistent with how we do.


 If we have to work it out, then we may not be creating an AI. I think
 Clarke had the right idea when he said that HAL had to be taught about the
 world. I suspect that children don't come with a huge amount of built in
 knowledge either.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once
languages emerge...


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:16 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 15:18, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams,
 but it does not address my question: How does the AGI come so interprete
 those data streams in a way that is compatible with ours?


 Well, how do we come to? (Or do we?)


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-04 Thread Stephen Paul King
Nah, I get what you mean. Connecting an AGI to a body is one way of
teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that?


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 September 2014 16:08, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 We are freaking AGI ourselves, operating machines made with
 biomolecules...


 Sorry, I thought it was obvious that's what I was saying, too, when I
 pointed out that an AGI could be connected to androids. Obviously that
 works both ways. Apologies for not making that clearer, I thought it was
 too obvious to mention.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Chris,

   Could you send me your thoughts about dependency injection to my gmail
address so that we can continue? kingstephenp...@gmail.com


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Stephen Paul King 
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Chris,

Could we discuss this further outside of the group?


 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:07 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 5:38 PM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 Hi Chris,



I agree. What we see in the current development is, literally,
 evolution - I would not say that it is Darwinian per se as it is not
 smooth or continuous. It looks more like a punctuated equilibrium over many
 interacting asynchronous systems. What I don't see is an analogue of a
 genome, such that the Dawkins model is supported.



 I just recently found talks on dependency injection. Please tell me
 more!



 Also known as inversion of control. Essentially it involves the
 implementation of interfaces. The interface being the contract. How the
 service implementing the contract goes about doing so is an internal
 matter, what matters to the client is that the contract is honored and the
 given service is performed. Complex systems are assemblages of simpler
 systems… file systems, data repositories, messaging systems, and so on.
 These systems can be composited together using interfaces and abstract
 containers – instead of returning a concrete container of something the
 thing can return something (could be anything) that fulfills a shared
 contract.

 Late binding dependency injection is a means of supplying at the late
 deployed run time phase of a configured set of libraries… perhaps behind
 other endpoints and so forth that will implement the required interface and
 provide the needed service. The consuming program need not worry about how
 a given dependency will be fulfilled – that is the injected libraries
 responsibility.

 Using a combination of programming behind the abstraction of interfaces
 and IOC containers – frameworks that perform late binding dependency
 injection to fulfill the service needs a program can free itself from any
 particular implementation and smoothly evolve to other better
 implementations as long as its contracts i.e. defined implemented
 interfaces can be fulfilled.



 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 2:53 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 Hi Chris,



A colleague of mine has found a few possible examples of
 self-assembling code but they are not strings of bits, they are better
 described as a form of topological object. They are based on a different
 model of computation:

 http://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/quines-in-chemlambda/



 software systems increasingly are becoming comprised of services (making
 use of other services (that call into other services (etc.))) In the
 ecosystem of cloud facing services those that are performant etc. will tend
 to rise and become incorporated – often, increasingly in a late binding
 manner, through a process called dependency injection – into other
 assemblies of multiple different services and internal logic that
 increasingly are themselves becoming exposed as yet other services.

 Meta systems, comprised of loosely coupled archipelagos of distinct areas
 of responsibility and roles linked together in the cloud through dynamic
 queues are taking off. Large systems such as say Netflix heavily rely on
 this architecture.

 IMO – this is an architecture in which a form of digital Darwinian
 evolution can more easily occur – as compared with traditionally
 application models -- with the services being the organisms and the cloud
 being the ecosystem. As the adoption of dependency injection models
 increases and systems become more late bound with the better exemplars of
 specific services (say logging, monitoring and alarming for example)
 becoming injected into live systems (often without even needing to bring
 them down) best of breed pressures will begin to drive the service
 organisms to evolve into becoming more effective and better options.



 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 9:43 AM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi John,

   why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? 

   Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from
Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks
running algorithms that evolve are very good at finding solutions to
optimization problems. It is even better (for the Zookeepers) for the cost
of those computations to be absorbed by the population doing the work.



On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:51 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stephen, we have not communicated for quite awhile. Why would you think we
 know more than - *what?* - *nothing* indeed and assume circumstances
 according to our whim (mindset?).
 (To Liz: who said those Aliens are benevoltent?)
 We still use our present terms in postulating a far bigger world as our
 creator, one we can 'imagine' to be applicable (understandable?) FOR US,
 just as we use human terms to simulate(!) animals' thinking/talking.
 We are in the midst of the typically human way: if we don't know
 something, we IMAGINE something/somebody? else who solves our problems
 right into our potentials and keeps us happy. (Religions?)

 Now why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings?
 Maybe to a level only *they(?*) should be able to COMMUNICATE with us?
 We may supply some mental products THEY EAT, or some 'energy' for them, a
 kind of unknown to us? Or entertainment? or nourishment of some  kind? Or a
 'mental nightpot'? as long as we supply, we last. Then we are out.
 (A similarly unfounded fantasy - just as the so called 'scientific' ones).
 John M





 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 What if the aliens are AI?


 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
 aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
 not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themselves?)


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Umm, not really. It is exploitation.


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi John,

why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings?
 

Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from
 Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks
 running algorithms that evolve are very good at finding solutions to
 optimization problems. It is even better (for the Zookeepers) for the cost
 of those computations to be absorbed by the population doing the work.

 This is what being absorbed into the Overmind *means*.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Humans interacting with each other form very nice (in terms of
expressiveness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_power) adaptive
networks.


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Stephen Paul King 
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Umm, not really. It is exploitation.


 On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi John,

why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the
 Earthlings? 

Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from
 Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks
 running algorithms that evolve are very good at finding solutions to
 optimization problems. It is even better (for the Zookeepers) for the cost
 of those computations to be absorbed by the population doing the work.

 This is what being absorbed into the Overmind *means*.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Umm, explain: Absorbed. I'm not groking it...


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Umm, not really. It is exploitation.

 Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Zerg http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Overmind! ?


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Umm, not really. It is exploitation.

 Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I
disagree with the ultimate aim of life in Star Maker (iirc) was to merge
into a single mind only to the extent that it is actually impossible
(there is a proven theorem to this effect) for this to happen. It always
goes the opposite direction: minds tend to diverge and become diverse and
not merge to an infinite limit.

   Merging actually destroys information. Witness the Black Hole.


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 13:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Zerg http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Overmind! ?

 Well, quite. I believe the name comes from Childhood's End although
 obviously Olaf Stapledon was writing about it (and influencing Clarke)
 decades earlier than the 1950s. The ultimate aim of life in Star Maker
 (iirc) was to merge into a single mind, and even that only managed to get a
 distorted glimpse of the true nature of reality.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are
free (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain
solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always
a good thing (for the Overlords at least).


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 13:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Zerg http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Overmind! ?

 Well, quite. I believe the name comes from Childhood's End although
 obviously Olaf Stapledon was writing about it (and influencing Clarke)
 decades earlier than the 1950s. The ultimate aim of life in Star Maker
 (iirc) was to merge into a single mind, and even that only managed to get a
 distorted glimpse of the true nature of reality.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an
optimization move.

   Oh!, your thinking in more Borg terms, re: absorption​


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are
 free (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain
 solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always
 a good thing (for the Overlords at least).

 If you mean the Overlords in Childhood's End they were (fairly)
 benevolent, they ended all wars and brought about a near-utopia. Of course
 it didn't last, because the ultimate aim of the Overmind was to have the
 human race join it.

 If you mean the Overmind, when you're absorbed you become part of its
 resources (and get proportionally represented in its decision making, etc).

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their largess
with us?


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are
 free (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain
 solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always
 a good thing (for the Overlords at least).

 If you mean the Overlords in Childhood's End they were (fairly)
 benevolent, they ended all wars and brought about a near-utopia. Of course
 it didn't last, because the ultimate aim of the Overmind was to have the
 human race join it.

 If you mean the Overmind, when you're absorbed you become part of its
 resources (and get proportionally represented in its decision making, etc).

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing
to be cost-free then it would make no difference, otherwise


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their
 largess with us?

 Why wouldn't they?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
What if the aliens are AI?


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
 aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
 not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themselves?)


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi LizR,

   My point about Aliens being AGI is simple. A sufficiently advanced alien
civilization may very likely have had a Singularity of its own in the past
and what survived are the machines!

   We forget that the Turing test is merely a test for an ability to
deceive humans

In that case they were built by someone else. 

   I don't think that AI works like that, now that I am thinking about it.
One could take the ID argument seriously and reach that conclusion. I don't
think that an AGI can be designed any more than you and I are not
designed.
   OTOH, -Following the ID concept for a bit longer - intelligent entities
can create conditions and environments within which AGI can evolve. I
submit that we will be just as unable to fathom the operations of the
mind of an AGI as we are of each other's minds. This unfathomability is
an inherent property of a mind. It is the inability to predict exactly its
behavior.

   My proof - if I should call it that - is a bit technical. It involves
an argument based on the ability of pair of computers to simulate each
others behavior and to have the simulations predicted by another computer.
If one computer X could exactly simulate another computer Y, then it is
easy to show that X could include Y as a sub-algorithm of some kind and
thus X would be able to inspect arbitrary content of the mind of B.

   Is this correct so far?




On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 3 September 2014 11:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 What if the aliens are AI?


 In that case they were built by someone else.



 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
 aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
 not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themselves?)

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi LizR,

  But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From what
I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a software machine. It does not need
particular hardware, it just needs the functions that are required to exist
and to be sequentiable properly.


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 3 September 2014 12:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi LizR,

My point about Aliens being AGI is simple. A sufficiently advanced
 alien civilization may very likely have had a Singularity of its own in the
 past and what survived are the machines!


 Agreed.


We forget that the Turing test is merely a test for an ability to
 deceive humans


 I hadn't forgotten that, though I'm not sure of the relevance in context.
 But anyway, to a sufficiently advanced AI a human being might not count as
 a person, in that their behaviour is more or less predictable. It almost
 fooled me, but it turned out to be just another DNA robot pretending to be
 sentient...


 In that case they were built by someone else. 

I don't think that AI works like that, now that I am thinking about
 it. One could take the ID argument seriously and reach that conclusion. I
 don't think that an AGI can be designed any more than you and I are not
 designed.


 I said built, not designed. The hardware itself is designed, and built,
 but the AI that lives inside it is something else again (the same is true
 of brains, of course - our offspring aren't designed ... despite our best
 efforts). A good fictional example is HAL in 2001 who was built, as
 hardware, and then the software was trained - brought up as much as
 possible like you would a child (hence Dr Chandra and Daisy, Daisy.)

 By definition, AFAIK, an artificial intelligence runs on hardware that was
 built. That's the distinction that makes it artificial - supposedly,
 though it may turn out to be a non-distinction if we find that circuits can
 be created that grow dynamically as they learn, like neurons - there are
 such things, as recently mentioned on this forum. At that point the buit
 distinction will go out the window I imagine.


OTOH, -Following the ID concept for a bit longer - intelligent
 entities can create conditions and environments within which AGI can
 evolve. I submit that we will be just as unable to fathom the operations of
 the mind of an AGI as we are of each other's minds. This
 unfathomability is an inherent property of a mind. It is the inability to
 predict exactly its behavior.


 Agreed. In particular, we can't predict our own behaviour.


My proof - if I should call it that - is a bit technical. It
 involves an argument based on the ability of pair of computers to simulate
 each others behavior and to have the simulations predicted by another
 computer. If one computer X could exactly simulate another computer Y, then
 it is easy to show that X could include Y as a sub-algorithm of some kind
 and thus X would be able to inspect arbitrary content of the mind of B.

Is this correct so far?


 Yes I think it's simliar to the halting problem, you can Godelise it. We
 exhibit this ourselves: we can't model our own behaviour to sufficient
 accuracy to predict it, except approximately. (Some people think this is
 what we mean by Free Will, though I'd rather not open that can of worms
 myself.)

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick here.
Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There is a
form of computation that would look like noise if one where only looking at
some subset of the network that is running a distributed computation. If
that distributed computation is an AGI, we would never know it is there and
neither would it know we are here.


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi LizR,

   But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From
 what I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
 dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a software machine. It does not need
 particular hardware, it just needs the functions that are required to exist
 and to be sequentiable properly.

 That may well be true. But of course the hardware has to be connected up
 correctly, there has to be enough storage connected, and it has to have the
 right software. The last is the trickiest part, I imagine (unless Dial F
 for Frankenstein is correct and you merely have to connect enough stuff
 together...)

 PS I'm not sure what sequentiable means, by the way. Wiktionary isn't
 being any help.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi LizR,

  Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs.
Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the
same number as 00100110001


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi LizR,

   But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From
 what I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
 dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a software machine. It does not need
 particular hardware, it just needs the functions that are required to exist
 and to be sequentiable properly.

 That may well be true. But of course the hardware has to be connected up
 correctly, there has to be enough storage connected, and it has to have the
 right software. The last is the trickiest part, I imagine (unless Dial F
 for Frankenstein is correct and you merely have to connect enough stuff
 together...)

 PS I'm not sure what sequentiable means, by the way. Wiktionary isn't
 being any help.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi LizR,

   Yes, I am saying that  there may be AIs around already unaware of our
existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the
behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree
self-aware in that there are self-replication behaviors associated -
See Dawkin's The extended Phenotype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Phenotype - Humans are quite
capable of becoming members of a sufficiently expressive language as
silicon hardware...


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 3 September 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick
 here. Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There
 is a form of computation that would look like noise if one where only
 looking at some subset of the network that is running a distributed
 computation. If that distributed computation is an AGI, we would never know
 it is there and neither would it know we are here.

 I suspect it would look like noise as far as I am concerned anyway. I'm
 not sure if this gets us any closer to an AGI, however. Presumably you
 still need to set it up correctly to start with (or something doeseg a
 long period of learning). Or are you saying that there may be AIs around
 already unaware of our existence and vice versa?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Modulo decryption


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
 wrote:

 Hi LizR,

   Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs.
 Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the
 same number as 00100110001

 Is it a real word? (Personally I'd go for correctly ordered or in the
 right order rather than sequentiable properly.)

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Brent,

   Have you seen any studies of the Ameoba dubia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium that look into what their
genome is expressing?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933061/
 seems to suggest to me the possibility that the genome is acting as a
brain!


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 8/31/2014 9:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote:

 As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the baby
 needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
 consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature - that
 is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and with
 other people (i.e. assimilate culture).

  This actually supplies a good reason for why we should find ourselves
 in a regular, lawlike universe. We can get by with a smaller genome,
 and learn the rest of the stuff that makes up our mental life, which
 is a more likely scenario (even evolutionary speaking) than having a
 large genome directly encoding our knowledge.

 Of course, that is only possible if in fact the environment is regular
 enough to be learnable.


 So that's why Amoeba dubia has a genome 200x bigger than ours?  It must
 live in a very irregular environment.

 Brent


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Telmo,

  Access to resources seems to only allow for reproduction and
continuation. For an AGI to act on the world it has to be able to use
those resources in a manner that implies that it can sense the world that
it exist within. This seems to be a catch-22 situation. ISTM, that if a
computation has no means to model itself as existing in a world or the
equivalent, how would it ever operate as if it did in the first place?
Blind clock-work?



On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:




 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 September 2014 04:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

   The Kolmogorov complexity of AGI could be relatively low -- maybe it
 can be expressed in 1000 lines of lisp.


 That is not a crazy idea because we know for a fact that in the entire
 human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each
 base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to
 just 750 meg, and that's enough assembly instructions to make not just a
 brain and all its wiring but a entire human baby. So the instructions MUST
 contain wiring instructions such as wire a neuron up this way and then and
 then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917 billion times. And
 there is a huge amount of redundancy in the human genome, if you used a
 file compression program like ZIP on that 750 meg you could easily put the
 entire thing on half a CD, not a DVD not a Blu ray just a old fashioned
 steam powered vanilla CD.

 This is enough information to build a general purpose conscious being,
 it would appear, but a baby is only born with some fairly simple
 instinctive behaviour (plus the adolescent gains some more instinctive
 behaviour at puberty). Even the visual cortex, which is probably not
 conscious and probably comes out roughly similar in most people, is created
 by trial and error. The neocortex must be even more so, to the Nth degree.
 Hence you have 750 meg of data (or whatever the figure is) that builds an
 infant, then you have a world which educates them.

 As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the baby
 needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
 consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature - that
 is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and with
 other people (i.e. assimilate culture).


 Agreed, but this is precisely what makes the AGI scenario scary. Imagine
 this potentially simple algorithm (similar to the one encoded in our DNA)
 being able to bootstrap itself with the information available on the
 Internet. Now imagine it has access to computational resources that makes
 it 1000x faster than the average human brain



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi John,

   Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
run that 750 Meg of information contained? I think that it is a mistake to
assume that Nature builds information sets that have nothing at all to do
with the particulars of the hardware. My reasoning here is that it is the
hardware that is acted upon to select the fittest genome - if we follow
Dawkins' line - and the fact that most of the DNA code is made up of
instructions to create this and that sequence of hydrocarbons - aka
proteins, sugars and peptides.

   We should *not* think of the computational aspect of living systems as
blind to hardware, ala computational universality.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

  Just want to point out that the process of DNA expression is highly
 dynamic and is multi-factored


 Yes it certainly is, but however dynamic the DNA information is it's still
 just 750 meg (actually it's much less than that considering the massive
 amount of redundancy in our genome). And Telmo's 1000 lines of lisp would
 also have to be highly dynamic.

   The mammalian genomes undergo very extensive genomic reprogramming
 during embryogenesis.


 And where did the information about how to do that reprogramming come
 from? From the original 750 meg.



  This is especially so during the process of embryogenesis, an
 unfolding developmental choreographed switching process that is controlled
 by epigenetic programming (methylation /demethylation and other mechanisms).


 Methylation means that occasionally a Methyl group might be added to one
 of the DNA bases, a base would have a Methyl group or it would not so it's
 still digital. There are 4 bases so AT MOST each of the 3 billion bases
 would represent 3 bits instead of 2, so the information content would
 increase from 750 Meg to 1.12 Gig and with a file compression program like
 ZIP you could still fit all of it on a CD.

 But in reality Epigenetic information is pretty clearly of minor
 importance compared with the DNA sequence information, so I doubt it would
 even cause it to increase to 751 Meg. And the evidence that Epigenetic
 heredity exists for more than one generation is very meager.


  DNA is not a direct single layered – single meaning -- instruction set
 encoded and fixed.


 You can assign as many layers of meaning on it as you like but nothing can
 change the fact that you could put all the information in the entire human
 DNA genome on a old fashioned CD and still have enough room on it for a
 Beatles album from 1965.


   The same strand of DNA, depending on the dynamic action of the large
 number of transcription factors


 A transcription factors is just a protein that binds to specific DNA
 sequences. And where did the information come from to know what sequence of
 amino acids will build that very important protein? From the original 750
 Meg of course.

  It is – IMO – necessary to understand DNA as [...]


 I'm not saying that understanding how 750 Meg of DNA information manages
 to produce a human being will be easy, figuring out how Telmo's 1000 lines
 of lisp works will not be easy either, but I am saying that's all the
 information there is.

   John K Clark


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi John,

   The chicken or the egg problem is not hard to solve; just figure out how
to get something that is a little bit like both and has an evolution path
into one or the other...
   But your missing my point here. There is an already existing environment
of physical stuff and interactions that is required for the expression of
the information associated with a genome. That is what makes up a world
for the genome and very little if any of it is encoded in that 750 Meg.
   Maybe I should have been a bit more clear in my earlier posts.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

  Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
 run that 750 Meg of information contained?


 DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
 anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
 and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
 sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
 cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
 thousand protein enzymes. And to answer your question, every single bit of
 information needed to make all those different types of RNA and all those
 different types of proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's
 equivalent to not only containing the program but also all the information
 you need to make the computer to run the program on. And if that reminds
 you a little of the chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has
 caused origin of like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows
 what to do but can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things
 but doesn't know what to do, come first?

   John K Clark



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Brent,

  DNA, RNA, whatever. Does information care how it is expressed?
Semantics... :-) I seem to be mostly agreeing with Chris' reasoning in his
latest post.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 9/1/2014 10:54 AM, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required
 to run that 750 Meg of information contained?


  DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
 anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
 and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
 sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
 cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
 thousand protein enzymes. And to answer your question, every single bit of
 information needed to make all those different types of RNA and all those
 different types of proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's
 equivalent to not only containing the program but also all the information
 you need to make the computer to run the program on. And if that reminds
 you a little of the chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has
 caused origin of like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows
 what to do but can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things
 but doesn't know what to do, come first?


 The most popular theory is that RNA came first.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
 by these other non-human organisms (especially the huge diverse
 community of microorganisms living in our guts).

 The kind of flora and fauna we have in our guts in many ways determines
 who we are, what we think and what we desire. It affects out well-being (or
 lack of it), our emotions and our goals. This genetic information is not
 part of the human DNA, but humans have coevolved with these communities of
 microorganisms and many of them play important (perhaps vital) roles in our
 Darwinian fitness.

 The information that triggers a whole slew of affects resulting in a
 changed outcome for the organism could very well have originated in some
 microorganism inhabiting that individuals gut. Our immune system especially
 seems to have co-evolved to work symbiotically with many different species
 of microorganisms.

 We require a vast library of CDs to live healthy lives…. Not just our DNA
 CD, but all the DNA CDs of the thousands of organisms that a healthy human
 animal requires (or greatly benefits from having within them). We are not
 isolated organisms apart from the many other cohabitating organisms that
 journey through life living inside our bodies.

  It is – IMO – necessary to understand DNA as [...]



 I'm not saying that understanding how 750 Meg of DNA information manages
 to produce a human being will be easy, figuring out how Telmo's 1000 lines
 of lisp works will not be easy either, but I am saying that's all the
 information there is.

   John K Clark



 I agree that it is amazingly compact. We may differ on where we draw the
 line. I do not see a single human (or other eukaryote) only in terms of its
 own DNA + epigenetic meta-programming over the DNA base, but also in terms
 of the ecosystem that exists within.  Both the beneficial and the parasitic
 species within us hugely affect our lives – as they do with every
 multi-cellular species we know about.

 We are walking talking ecosystems with biotic auras as unique as
 fingerprints (in fact forensic science is beginning to study this as a
 potential investigative tool)

 -Chris



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Excellent point, Chris. Entities do not exist in isolation from each
other... We have to include the world or environment of an entity when
we consider it in our models and reasonings.
   I wonder how an AGI will develop a model of its world and what kind of
world would it be.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 10:55 AM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:



  Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
 run that 750 Meg of information contained?



 DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
 anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
 and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
 sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
 cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
 thousand protein enzymes.

 Don’t forget to mention the ribosomes.



 And to answer your question, every single bit of information needed to
 make all those different types of RNA and all those different types of
 proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's equivalent to not only
 containing the program but also all the information you need to make the
 computer to run the program on. And if that reminds you a little of the
 chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has caused origin of
 like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows what to do but
 can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things but doesn't
 know what to do, come first?

   John K Clark



 Can a single complex multi-cellular organism be understood or defined
 completely without also viewing it in its larger multi-species context?

 Within our own selves; we are not alone! And we do not function in life on
 our own either. Our living bodies are thriving diverse communities of
 microorganisms as well. Without all of that externally stored DNA and all
 that dynamic interactions with these other co-evolved organisms would we
 even be able to survive for long? We certainly cannot live without them and
 remain in good health.

 Without also accounting for all the services the beneficial micro flora
 and fauna provide us and then adding this externally reposited DNA into the
 tally of the set of information needed to produce a healthy human
 individual… well without doing this we are just looking at the tip of the
 genetic and biological iceberg.

 -Chris



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Chris,

   Exactly! I recall David Bohm speaking about interpenetration in this
sense. My current work is on computational environments and I am surprised
as to how little research has been done in this area that I can find.



On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:54 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 4:03 PM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 Excellent point, Chris. Entities do not exist in isolation from each
 other... We have to include the world or environment of an entity when
 we consider it in our models and reasonings.

I wonder how an AGI will develop a model of its world and what kind of
 world would it be.

 Read a study that is in the science news lately that within a period even
 as brief as just 24 hours a person or familiar grouping of peoples biotic
 auras will completely take over and colonize the environment of a hotel
 room. We are dragging a microscopic jungle with us wherever we go and in
 the spots we habituate – in those same exact spots our fingerprint specific
 micro-biota also sets up shop.

 There are more than fifty different known species of microorganisms that
 have evolved to live on human tooth enamel (and similar numbers for dogs,
 cats, rabbits, crocodiles.. ) that is just the enamel surface… have not
 even hit the gum line where there is a veritable population explosion and
 many more microorganisms.

 We live  breathe, are bathed in… a living biotic earth planet soup. Our
 bodies are like sieves and we are filled by a still poorly understood
 micro-biotic ecosystem that interacts with our own body’s cells in so many
 ways both beneficial and parasitic.

 The reductionist view of seeing an organism in isolation of its
 environment (including its inner environment) misses the mark and fails to
 capture the dynamic living reality that we are walking talking ecosystems…
 each single one of us…. Veritable jungles living deep inside us. Our lives
 are shared lives.

 Life or perhaps living systems, involve multiple actors.

 -Chris



 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 10:55 AM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:



  Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
 run that 750 Meg of information contained?



 DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
 anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
 and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
 sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
 cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
 thousand protein enzymes.

 Don’t forget to mention the ribosomes.



 And to answer your question, every single bit of information needed to
 make all those different types of RNA and all those different types of
 proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's equivalent to not only
 containing the program but also all the information you need to make the
 computer to run the program on. And if that reminds you a little of the
 chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has caused origin of
 like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows what to do but
 can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things but doesn't
 know what to do, come first?

   John K Clark



 Can a single complex multi-cellular organism be understood or defined
 completely without also viewing it in its larger multi-species context?

 Within our own selves; we are not alone! And we do not function in life on
 our own either. Our living bodies are thriving diverse communities of
 microorganisms as well. Without all of that externally stored DNA and all
 that dynamic interactions with these other co-evolved organisms would we
 even be able to survive for long? We certainly cannot live without them and
 remain in good health.

 Without also accounting for all the services the beneficial micro flora
 and fauna provide us and then adding this externally reposited DNA into the
 tally of the set of information needed to produce a healthy human
 individual… well without doing this we are just looking at the tip of the
 genetic and biological iceberg.

 -Chris



 --

 You received this message because you 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

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Chris,

   Could we discuss this further outside of the group?


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:07 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 5:38 PM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 Hi Chris,



I agree. What we see in the current development is, literally,
 evolution - I would not say that it is Darwinian per se as it is not
 smooth or continuous. It looks more like a punctuated equilibrium over many
 interacting asynchronous systems. What I don't see is an analogue of a
 genome, such that the Dawkins model is supported.



 I just recently found talks on dependency injection. Please tell me more!



 Also known as inversion of control. Essentially it involves the
 implementation of interfaces. The interface being the contract. How the
 service implementing the contract goes about doing so is an internal
 matter, what matters to the client is that the contract is honored and the
 given service is performed. Complex systems are assemblages of simpler
 systems… file systems, data repositories, messaging systems, and so on.
 These systems can be composited together using interfaces and abstract
 containers – instead of returning a concrete container of something the
 thing can return something (could be anything) that fulfills a shared
 contract.

 Late binding dependency injection is a means of supplying at the late
 deployed run time phase of a configured set of libraries… perhaps behind
 other endpoints and so forth that will implement the required interface and
 provide the needed service. The consuming program need not worry about how
 a given dependency will be fulfilled – that is the injected libraries
 responsibility.

 Using a combination of programming behind the abstraction of interfaces
 and IOC containers – frameworks that perform late binding dependency
 injection to fulfill the service needs a program can free itself from any
 particular implementation and smoothly evolve to other better
 implementations as long as its contracts i.e. defined implemented
 interfaces can be fulfilled.



 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 2:53 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 Hi Chris,



A colleague of mine has found a few possible examples of
 self-assembling code but they are not strings of bits, they are better
 described as a form of topological object. They are based on a different
 model of computation:

 http://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/quines-in-chemlambda/



 software systems increasingly are becoming comprised of services (making
 use of other services (that call into other services (etc.))) In the
 ecosystem of cloud facing services those that are performant etc. will tend
 to rise and become incorporated – often, increasingly in a late binding
 manner, through a process called dependency injection – into other
 assemblies of multiple different services and internal logic that
 increasingly are themselves becoming exposed as yet other services.

 Meta systems, comprised of loosely coupled archipelagos of distinct areas
 of responsibility and roles linked together in the cloud through dynamic
 queues are taking off. Large systems such as say Netflix heavily rely on
 this architecture.

 IMO – this is an architecture in which a form of digital Darwinian
 evolution can more easily occur – as compared with traditionally
 application models -- with the services being the organisms and the cloud
 being the ecosystem. As the adoption of dependency injection models
 increases and systems become more late bound with the better exemplars of
 specific services (say logging, monitoring and alarming for example)
 becoming injected into live systems (often without even needing to bring
 them down) best of breed pressures will begin to drive the service
 organisms to evolve into becoming more effective and better options.



 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 9:43 AM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:



  Just want to point out that the process of DNA expression is highly
 dynamic and is multi-factored



 Yes it certainly is, but however dynamic the DNA information is it's still
 just 750 meg

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-08-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Chris,

  Here is the thing. Does not the difficulty in creating a computational
simulation of the brain in action give you pause? Why are we assuming that
the AI will have a mind (program) that can be parsed by humans?

   AFAIK, AGI (following Ben Goertzel's convention) will be completely
incomprehensible to us. If we are trying to figure out its values, what
could we do better than to run the thing in a sandbox and let it interact
in with test AI. Can we prove that is intelligent?

   I don't think so! Unless we could somehow mindmeld with it and the
mindmeld results in a mutual understanding, how could we have a proof.
But melding minds together is a hard thing to do


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on
 unfounded assumptions?



 Perhaps, and I see your point.

 However, am going to try to make the following case:

 If we take AI as some emergent networked meta-system, arising in a
 non-linear, fuzzy, non-demarcated manner from pre-existing (increasingly
 networked) proto-AI smart systems (+vast repositories), such as already
 exist… and then drill down through the code layers – through the logic
 (DNA) – embedded within and characterizing all those sub systems, and
 factor in all the many conscious and unconscious human assumptions and
 biases that exist throughout these deeply layered systems… I would argue
 that what could emerge ( given the trajectory will emerge fairly soon I
 think) will very much have our human fingerprints sown all the way through
 its source code, its repositories, its injected values. At least initially.

 I am concerned by the kinds of “values” that are becoming encoded in
 sub-system after sub-system, when the driving motivation for these layered
 complex self-navigating, increasingly autonomous systems is to create
 untended killer robots as well as social data mining smart agents to
 penetrate social networks and identify targets. If this becomes the major
 part of the code base from which AI emerges then isn’t it a fairly good
 reason to be concerned about the software DNA of what could emerge? If the
 code base is driven by the desire to establish and maintain a system
 characterized by having a highly centralized and vertical social control,
 deep data mining defended by an army increasingly comprised of autonomous
 mobile warbots… isn’t this a cause for concern?

 But then -- admittedly -- who really knows how an emergent machine based
 (probably highly networked) self-aware intelligence might evolve; my
 concern is the initial conditions (algorithms etc.) we are embedding into
 the source code from which an AI would emerge.



 On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA, NSA,
 DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent
 untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to
 the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of
 super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent
 machine devoted to the killing of enemy human beings (+ opposing drones I
 suppose as well)



 This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it?
 --

 *From:* meekerdb meek...@verizon.net
 *To:*
 *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us



 Bostrom says, If humanity had been sane and had our act together
 globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of
 superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe
 wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked
 some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit.
 Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause.

 But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages.  I think ISIS is working hard to
 produce a pause.

 Brent

 On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM

 Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford
 Professor




 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to 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

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-08-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on 
unfounded assumptions?

On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA, NSA, 
 DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent 
 untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to 
 the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of 
 super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent 
 machine devoted to the killing of enemy human beings (+ opposing drones I 
 suppose as well)

 This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it?
   --
  *From:* meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:
 *To:* 
 *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
  
  Bostrom says, If humanity had been sane and had our act together 
 globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of 
 superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe 
 wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked 
 some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit. 
 Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause.

 But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages.  I think ISIS is working hard to 
 produce a pause.

 Brent

 On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM 

 Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford 
 Professor  

  
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science
  

  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 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: AI Dooms Us

2014-08-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
 If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the
sensible course of action would be to postpone development of
superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. 

  Sanity is not a common property of crowds, we are not considering
wisdom but actual observer behaviors of humans in large groups. If we
define wise behavior that which does not generate higher entropy in its
environment, crows, more often than not, tend to not be wise.

   If an AI where to emerge from the interactions of many computers, would
it be expected to be sane? What is sanity anyway?

  Another question is: Would AI have a view of the universe that can be
matched up with ours? If not, how would we expect it to see the world
that it interacts with? Our worlds and that of AI may be disjoint!


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:

 Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on
 unfounded assumptions?

 On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA,
 NSA, DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent
 untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to
 the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of
 super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent
 machine devoted to the killing of enemy human beings (+ opposing drones I
 suppose as well)

 This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it?
   --
  *From:* meekerdb meek...@verizon.net
 *To:*
 *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM
 *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us

  Bostrom says, If humanity had been sane and had our act together
 globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of
 superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe
 wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked
 some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit.
 Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause.

 But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages.  I think ISIS is working hard to
 produce a pause.

 Brent

 On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM

 Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford
 Professor

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-
 intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to 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 a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-07-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Bruno,

  Is the measure idempotent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence?


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
 yielding a different probability for each quantum state
  and a different measure for each different scenario
 unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
 Do you disagree?
 Richard



 The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like square
 normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like in both QM
 and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a measure on real
 numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative states. It is really a
 measure on the transition a I b. In quantum mechanics it is given by [a
 I b]^2, but with comp this must be explained by a measure on all the
 computations going from a mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a
 mind state of observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity
 of universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them belonging to
 a computation).

 The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case. The
 first person histories with computable sequence like WW..., or
 WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is high
 incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness).

 The ultimate protocol is  the logical structure of the sigma_1
 arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle with
 the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine for the first
 person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine view, by
 simple incompleteness.

 The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure calculus
 (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus lexicon), but it
 provides the logic of the measure one, from which the measure calculus +
 the arithmetical constraints)  should be derivable (and the measure one
 admits a quantization confirming things go well there).

 Bruno



 On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
  On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish 
 li...@hpcoders.com.au
  wrote:
 
   On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
   
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
 example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does
 that
come from?
   
  
   The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
   expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
   measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
   default assumption for most purposes.
 
 
  The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is
 close to
  the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
  In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the
 measure
  of the reals is invariant.
  Richard
 

 What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-07-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:32:37PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
  Hi Russell,
 
 I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome
 the
  inherent zero measure?
 

 Because a finite constraint matches an infinite number of zero measure
 items.

 Consider the set of real numbers matching the constraint that the
 initial sequence in the binary expansion is 0.110000111

 Even though each real number has measure zero, the set of all numbers
 matching that constraint has measure 2^{-13} (about 0.000122).

 Assuming the standard measure on the reals, of course.

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-07-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
 to be a sort of father in the sky, but
 we might learn better here too.

 Then, the God of the materialist is the physical universe. Here too, we
 might learn better.

 Materialism might be right, but with comp, we get a problem of how that
 physical universe can select a consciousness in a stream of consciousness
 in arithmetic.

 The materialist religion has a tendency to abstract from the existence of
 consciousness. That's OK as a fertile methodological strategy, but in my
 opinion it misses the most important things: persons. It fails also to
 explain the nature of matter and where it comes from.

 No problem, computer science and machine's computer science, and the
 difference between, unravel a different theology than the materialist one,
 which seems promising on those questions. To put is roughly: matter looks
 like the derivative of mind. Or mind is the primitive of matter (pun
 included).









  If you are going to narrowly define atheism as not believing in the god
 of the bible, then of course I will agree with you (I will even throw in
 the Norse and Egyptian gods and a few others, if you like). But that isn't
 what I am talking about when I say Atheism, and I doubt it's what Asimov
 meant either.


 You seem to be equating atheism with asserting that nothing beyond our
 knowledge of nature exists.  Not just failing to believe that such exists,
 but having 100% confidence that it doesn't.  I don't know anyone who calls
 himself an atheist and who makes such a strong statement.  Dawkins has
 explicity said he is not absolutely certain there is no god of any kind.
 Vic Stenger explicitly says he cannot rule out a deist god.


 Well, they still ignore machine's theology, isn't it? With the original
 Platonist notion of God (the truth we search inward, about which the first
 thing we know is that it is above us, ineffable, etc).

 If atheism is the disbelief in the literal Christian god, then all taoist,
 jewish, muslims, hinduists, etc. are atheists.

 Why did Cantor wrote to the pope, and develop long correspondences with a
 bishop, to discuss about the possible blaspheme of his naming of the higher
 infinities?
 Cantor was aware that his set theory was already a sort of theology.

 The belief in God is a bit like the belief in some infinite. In math it
 can simplifies the proofs, despite for many proofs, its use can be
 eliminated.

 There are two main reasons for people to believe in God.

 1) because their parents told so.
 2) because they look inward and get personal evidence (mystical
 experience)

 And there are many intermediates, where people believes in God because
 their parents told so, and they look inward and get evidences that they
 interpret as confirmation of what their parents said. Some might look
 inward enough to understand that what their parents said should be
 interpreted less literally, for example.

 But once a religion becomes a political tool, then looking inward is
 badly seen, and the free research is banished. Logic get quickly abandoned
 too.

 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/X0w0JtCyK1U/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-06-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

   Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality
has a zero measure?

  My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD
is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical
universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me?

If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics
completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why
bother measuring what doesn't exist?!
​​




On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote:

  On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
 simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a
 metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-god type of
 assumption.


 But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists.


 OK.





   And to say that arithmetic emulates all simulations seems to me to
 'prove to much'.  It's just saying that whatever exists in your physical
 theory is already in my arithmetical theory.



 Yes. But at first sight with the measure all wrong. I submit (and solve
 partially) that measure problem.

 That your physical reality is in the arithmetical reality is trivial. But
 the UDA shows that the physical reality has to be given by the measure on
 all computations. It means, roughly, that the SWE ,must be derived from the
 measure on the sigma_1 sentences, like the collapse phenomenology can be
 derived from the SWE.



 Which is a god-of-the-substrate type argument.


 It would be, if we were not just deriving this reversal from a simple
 general, but fertile, assumption: that we are (universal) machine emulable.

 I give a theorem, which leads to a problem. Not a solution. (although a
 partial one, which already gives a different (than usual) theological
 perspective.

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-06-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Russell,

   Let me rephrase. You wrote:  With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.

​​
   I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we
introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with the
usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very biased
sample.



On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
  Hi,
 
 Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the
  measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality
  has a zero measure?
 
My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
  universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD
  is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical
  universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me?
 
  If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics
  completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why
  bother measuring what doesn't exist?!
  ​​
 

 I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our
 physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
 is if COMP is false.

 Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations
 - that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will
 always be finite.

 It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low
 measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP.

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-06-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Russell,

   I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the
inherent zero measure?


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
  Hi Russell,
 
 Let me rephrase. You wrote:  With COMP, the chance of our
  physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
  is if COMP is false.
 
  ​​
 I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
  the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we
  introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with
 the
  usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very
 biased
  sample.
 

 By definition, UD* contains all possible experiences for all possible
 COMP observers. Therefore, you will find our reality somewhere in UD* with
 certainty.

 That has nothing to do with measure.

 Measure has to do with how likely our observed reality is, when
 sampled from the set of all possible observed realities. And that
 number is non-zero, simply by virtue that our observed reality is
 constrained by a finite number of observations.

 You just need to ask the right question...

 Cheers

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

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


Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-05-27 Thread Stephen Paul King
To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely
useless.   Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be
organized...


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:52 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:

 On 28 May 2014 11:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in
 popular knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by
 a mile, is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason
 it's ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up
 another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual
 evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence,
 where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with
 knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it
 wouldn't happen


 Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune
 systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use
 bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions
 have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to
 catch their parasites...


 there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this.
 It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is
 treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his
 short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther
 bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and
 underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between
 ape and pig can't go on all fours.

 this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a
 microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits
 is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level
 featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are
 impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are
 acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share
 parentage for that.

 It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to
 evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of
 distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts
 over. He did his legwork

 does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site
 macroevolution.net


 not to say he's little miss perfect. case in point:

 *sequence differences are not necessary for anatomical differences to be
 present*.s

 -- of course they bloody are. what he's probably saying is genetic
 sequences. Noncoding dna is probably as or more important and different
 traits will need the dna to say that trait is like that, and get built like
 this, when, where.

  An obvious example of this phenomenon is Down's syndrome. Individuals
 affected by Down's regularly exhibit certain distinctive anatomical
 features, and yet in terms of their nucleotide sequences they do not differ
 in any way from other humans. To detect someone with Down's syndrome,
 sequence data is completely useless.

 -- he does this a fair bit over the site...which is a mistake really
 because he's on the outside and overlooking down's people are missing a
 whole freaking chromosome is a shame. It's just a case of he's really busy
 and thorough for his theory but draws on general knowledge for some of his
 argument. But he'll be judged for that similarly.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/X0w0JtCyK1U/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-05-26 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi,

  This phrase in the article makes me doubt that the writer thereof did his 
homework:
for some unknown reason the flashes synchronize over time.” The 
synchronization of weakly coupled oscillators is a well known phenomena! It 
should be pointed out that in the human brain, global synchronization is 
harmful. It is the cause of epilepsy: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy#Mechanism.

On Monday, May 19, 2014 2:26:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

 Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? 


 No. Elementary arithmetic emulates n-synchronized oscillators for all n, 
 even infinite enumerable set of oscillators. You would need a continuum of 
 oscillators, with an explicit special non computable hamiltonian. Today, 
 there is nothing in nature which would threat comp, except the collapse of 
 the wave packet in theories where this is a physical phenomenon. Even in 
 that case, it would be a computation with oracle, and not change much of 
 the consequences. Anyway, I am not sure I can make sense of the wave 
 collapse being a physical phenomenon, and even less that this play a role 
 in the brain computation.

 Bruno


  
 15046Synchronized oscillators may allow for computing that works like the 
 brain
 *Expand Messages*

- richard ruquist
May 15 2:09 PM
View Source
-  0 Attachment
   - 
Synchronized oscillators may allow for computing that works like the 
brainMay 15, 2014
[image: oscillating_switch]
This is a cartoon of an oscillating switch, the basis of a new type of 
low-power analog computing (credit: Credit: Nikhil Shukla, Penn State)
Computing is currently based on binary (Boolean) logic, but a new type 
of computing architecture created by electrical engineers at Penn 
 Statehttp://www.psu.edu/ stores 
information in the frequencies and phases of periodic signals and could 
work more like the human brain.
It would use a fraction of the energy necessary for today’s computers, 
according to the engineers.
To achieve the new architecture, they used a thin film of vanadium 
oxide on a titanium dioxide substrate to create an oscillating switch. 
Vanadium dioxide is called a “wacky oxide” because it transitions from a 
conducting metal to an insulating semiconductor and vice versa with the 
addition of a small amount of heat or electrical current.
*Biological synchronization for associative processing*
Using a standard electrical engineering trick, Nikhil Shukla, graduate 
student in electrical engineering, added a series resistor to the oxide 
device to stabilize oscillations. When he added a second similar 
oscillating system, he discovered that, over time, the two devices began 
 to 
oscillate in unison, or synchronize.
This coupled system could provide the basis for non-Boolean computing. 
Shukla worked with Suman Datta, professor of electrical engineering, and 
co-advisor Roman Engel-Herbert, assistant professor of materials science 
and engineering, Penn State. They reported their results May 14 in 
 *Scientific 
Reports* (open access).
“It’s called a small-world network,” explained Shukla. “You see it in 
lots of biological systems, such as certain species of fireflies. The 
 males 
will flash randomly, but then for some unknown reason the flashes 
synchronize over time.” The brain is also a small-world network of closely 
clustered nodes that evolved for more efficient information processing.
“Biological synchronization is everywhere,” added Datta. “We wanted to 
use it for a different kind of computing called associative processing, 
which is an analog rather than digital way to compute.”
An array of oscillators can store patterns — for instance, the color 
of someone’s hair, their height and skin texture. If a second area of 
oscillators has the same pattern, they will begin to synchronize, and the 
degree of match can be read out, without consuming a lot of energy and 
requiring a lot of transistors, as in Boolean computing.
*A neuromorphic computer chip*
Datta is collaborating with Vijay Narayanan, professor of computer 
science and engineering, Penn State, in exploring the use of these coupled 
oscillations to solve visual recognition problems more efficiently than 
existing embedded vision processors.
Shukla and Datta called on the expertise of Cornell University 
materials scientist Darrell Schlom to make the vanadium dioxide thin film, 
which has extremely high quality similar to single crystal silicon. Arijit 
Raychowdhury, computer engineer, and Abhinav Parihar graduate student, 
 both 
of Georgia Tech, mathematically simulated the nonlinear dynamics of 
 coupled 
phase transitions in the vanadium dioxide devices.
Parihar created a short video simulation of the transitions, which 
 

Re: Climate models

2014-04-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
Polygamy is common for most mammals


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 17 April 2014 02:36, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 Some of it is motivated from females needing to survive and look after
 their children. How much wealth, be it hunted game, or IPO stock options.
 Unless the male is very wealthy, there is no advantage for the female to
 share a mail, Some do, and they are the exception. There are logical
 reasons why monogamy has succeeded, and polygamy and polyandry to recede.
 This may be changing? Unless a man pair bonds with a women, and we had the
 option, when you to have sex with multiple females, say within the same
 month, we would opt for it. The version of planet Earth is not in this
 universe, though, somewhere in Hugh Everett-ville.


 Yes, polygamy can only work where food is plentiful etc, otherwise the
 monogamy genes will come to dominate when children need more than one
 parent to rear them successfully. If men can wander off and still propagate
 their genes, they will do so, because that becomes a successful strategy -
 as some men do, of course... This is supposed to account for the difference
 in sexual attitudes between hot and cold countries, although some would
 consider that racist / non-PC  ... still, seems logical nevertheless.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Climate models

2014-04-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
This paper is the best I have seen as a method to construct a real AI:
 http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

It is already built, it is just a matter of scaling it up But don't
assume that such AI will perceive the same physical world as we do!


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/15/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Read what I wrote. Machine intelligence is not a question of brickology.
 Intelligence is not something which can be engineered.
 It is a question of exploration of some reality, and it is a question of
 us being sufficiently inetlligent to recognize intelligence here and there
 along that exploration.


 Are you saying we cannot build an intelligent machine?  Or are you saying
 we can only build a machine capable of learning to be intelligent?

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Climate models

2014-04-10 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Telmo,

   Those truths that are often the hardest to learn require the most
painful of lessons.


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:

 sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than
 a man and a woman,  neither climate can be changed by little ants like us,
 neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational
 identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on
 ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be
 promoted without immense pain in women  for the assassination of  his
 child.

 But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international
 delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that
 things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is
 coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is
 invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power
 in a central elite.


 In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an
 economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle
 of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds



 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Read  Corona's post carefully.


 I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I
 don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When
 I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the
 same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to
 tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video
 still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the
 divine:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

 It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the
 ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more
 amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are
 also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the
 west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in
 the road.

 On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we
 still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet
 and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they
 are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of
 some cyberpunk dystopia.

 But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is
 part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If
 anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only
 increasing the carrying capacity of our environment.

 Telmo.




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear Telmo,

   It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively
 defined.


 Hi Stephan,

 Could you tell me what measure you are referring to?




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
 agocor...@gmail.com wrote:


   On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

  Hi Liz,

   Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the
 planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality?


 The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+
 Gay promotion  instead of international collaboration for space 
 exploration
 and expansion has some reasons:


 Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in
 weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People 
 can't
 change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or
 have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going
 to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting
 rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of
 gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives
 for no good reason.



 first:  any menace related with resources and population is easier
 to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since 
 we
 were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild
 animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we
 produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the
 modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources 
 with
 our knowledge.

 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that
 depleted complely the resources and had to move to another place every
 year. Now we are 3.000.000 in the same area

Re: Climate models

2014-04-10 Thread Stephen Paul King
Alberto,

  Don't feed the trolls...


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:

 Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults
  andd ad-hominem straw man etc,  have any effect across internet except to
 laugh at you?

 The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has gone
 since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one...




 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:

 The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are
 bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex
 is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex.


 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
 agocor...@gmail.comwrote:

 By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays
 by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons.
 If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true
 homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is
 increasing the violence against women.


 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:

 sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other
 than a man and a woman,  neither climate can be changed by little ants like
 us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither
 supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without
 depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion
 can be promoted without immense pain in women  for the assassination of
  his child.

 But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international
 delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that
 things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is
 coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is
 invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power
 in a central elite.


 In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an
 economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle
 of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds



 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Read  Corona's post carefully.


 I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering.
 I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion.
 When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and 
 at
 the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore
 me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. 
 This
 video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at
 showing the divine:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

 It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the
 ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more
 amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are
 also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the
 west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in
 the road.

 On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we
 still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet
 and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they
 are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of
 some cyberpunk dystopia.

 But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion
 is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If
 anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only
 increasing the carrying capacity of our environment.

 Telmo.




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
  wrote:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear Telmo,

   It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively
 defined.


 Hi Stephan,

 Could you tell me what measure you are referring to?




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
 agocor...@gmail.com wrote:


   On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

  Hi Liz,

   Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off
 the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality?


 The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+
 feminism+ Gay promotion  instead of international collaboration for 
 space
 exploration and expansion has some reasons:


 Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in
 weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People 
 can't
 change their sexual orientation. It's not like

Re: Climate models

2014-04-10 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Alberto,

  Cost is always an issue. It cannot be avoided (contra the belief of
magical thinkers) but it can be minimized by increasing the efficiency of
systems.


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:

 Stephen

 hehehe. Ok I will not.

 Reality can fight  alone and will win inevitably against the ones that
 deny it.

 The problem is the price to pay in the process


 2014-04-10 18:38 GMT+02:00 Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com:

 Alberto,

   Don't feed the trolls...


 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
 agocor...@gmail.comwrote:

 Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults
  andd ad-hominem straw man etc,  have any effect across internet except to
 laugh at you?

 The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has
 gone since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one...




 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:

 The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are
 bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex
 is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex.


 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
 agocor...@gmail.com wrote:

 By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of
 gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary
 reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate 
 true
 homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is
 increasing the violence against women.


 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:

 sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other
 than a man and a woman,  neither climate can be changed by little ants 
 like
 us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither
 supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live 
 without
 depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither 
 abortion
 can be promoted without immense pain in women  for the assassination of
  his child.

 But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international
 delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea 
 that
 things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe 
 is
 coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is
 invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power
 in a central elite.


 In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an
 economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle
 of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds



 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Read  Corona's post carefully.


 I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth
 considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete 
 with
 religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday
 school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The
 former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human
 transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the
 religious attempts at showing the divine:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

 It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the
 ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more
 amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are
 also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the
 west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump 
 in
 the road.

 On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe
 we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the 
 Internet
 and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and 
 they
 are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of
 some cyberpunk dystopia.

 But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion
 is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. 
 If
 anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only
 increasing the carrying capacity of our environment.

 Telmo.




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear Telmo,

   It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively
 defined.


 Hi Stephan,

 Could you tell me what measure you are referring to?




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
 agocor...@gmail.com wrote:


   On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com

Re: Climate models

2014-04-10 Thread Stephen Paul King
 Try this: http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~belgin/Population/malthus.html

Malthus was not content with one classification system for his checks -
or, perhaps, in the overwhelming disorganization of the first Essay, dashed
off at the spur of the moment as it were, he simply lost track of the fact
that he had, in fact, developed two parallel systems. The second, which
took a more moralistic view, divided checks into misery and vice. This
system, like the first, was exclusive, all checks falling into one category
or the other: In short, stated Malthus, it is difficult to conceive any
check to population which does not come under the description of some
species of misery or vice, (Essay.. 106). Roughly speaking, these were
checks visited upon man by the outside world, and checks which came from
man himself. Misery included such things as hunger, poverty, and disease.
Vice, was a concept which Malthus, with sensibilities typical of the
time, was reluctant to define closely. The closest he came to defining vice
explicitly was not until the publication of A Summary View, wherein he
listed the checks of vice that operated in a preventative manner: the sort
of intercourse which renders some of the women of large towns unprolific; a
general corruption of morals with regard to the sex, which has a similar
effect; unnatural passions and improper arts to prevent the consequences of
irregular connections, (Summary... p. 250). With these delicate terms,
Malthus referred to prostitution, venereal disease, homosexuality, and,
notably, abortion and birth control.

What Malthus seems to have not seen is that resources availability curves
where not a priori fixed. Technology bends the curves...


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:

 sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than
 a man and a woman,


 If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am
 married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not
 real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how
 that would affect my life.
 I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can
 do so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not
 discriminated against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc.

   neither climate can be changed by little ants like us,


 Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons.


 neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational
 identities can be fabricated,


 But nations themselves are fabricated. They are power structures. The more
 technology progresses the bigger power structures you can create. But we
 can agree on something: there are people trying to create such global power
 structures, and this is not good news. I believe that paradise is
 decentralised.


 neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies
 essentially made by men.


 Made be men made by women. Then it's Lisp all the way down (sorry,
 couldn't resist the obscure nerdy joke)


  Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women  for the
 assassination of  his child.


 I don't know how it feels to have an abortion. The only thing I know is
 that it's none of my business. It also saddens me when we have the
 technology to prevent suffering, but this relief is denied because of
 ancient desert superstitions.



 But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international
 delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that
 things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is
 coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is
 invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power
 in a central elite.


 We can agree on this one.




 In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an
 economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle
 of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds



 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:




 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Read  Corona's post carefully.


 I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I
 don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When
 I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the
 same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to
 tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video
 still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the
 divine:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

 It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the
 ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more
 amazing things

Re: Climate models

2014-04-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Alberto,

   Hear Hear!


On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:


   On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

  Hi Liz,

   Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the
 planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality?


 The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay
 promotion  instead of international collaboration for space exploration and
 expansion has some reasons:

 first:  any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell
 I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we were
 stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild animals
 and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we produce
 now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the modern man,
 despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with our
 knowledge.

 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that depleted
 complely the resources and had to move to another place every year. Now we
 are 3.000.000 in the same area, mostly unhabited still. An yet we live
 better, there are probably more wild animals  and more forest.

 But still there are stone-age minded people that ate human beings and
 want to save the planet.

 second: space exploration can not qualify for a religion, at least, not as
 a totalitarian religion. The  Cult to the earth and human sacrifices will
 ever qualify since it is the most primitive religion. Leaders want commited
 people and this inevitably demand sacrifices, due to the nature of beings
 with incomplete information. I explained it in this thread as well as
 others in this group.

 --
 Alberto.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
You received this message because you 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: Climate models

2014-04-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Telmo,

  It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined.


On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:




 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:


   On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

  Hi Liz,

   Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the
 planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality?


 The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay
 promotion  instead of international collaboration for space exploration and
 expansion has some reasons:


 Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird
 religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't
 change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or
 have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going
 to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting
 rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of
 gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives
 for no good reason.



 first:  any menace related with resources and population is easier to
 sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we
 were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild
 animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we
 produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the
 modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with
 our knowledge.

 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that
 depleted complely the resources and had to move to another place every
 year. Now we are 3.000.000 in the same area, mostly unhabited still. An yet
 we live better, there are probably more wild animals  and more forest.

 But still there are stone-age minded people that ate human beings and
 want to save the planet.

 second: space exploration can not qualify for a religion, at least, not
 as a totalitarian religion. The  Cult to the earth and human sacrifices
 will ever qualify since it is the most primitive religion. Leaders want
 commited people and this inevitably demand sacrifices, due to the nature of
 beings with incomplete information. I explained it in this thread as well
 as others in this group.

 --
 Alberto.

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


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
You received this message because you 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.


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >