subject:"Re\: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff\/Penrose consciousness theory basis"

John,

First, 2 substantial errors in your post below.

1. I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off 
from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip. But 
even if he blasted off from earth's surface at 2g that would have a 
negligible and irrelevant effect on his clock because it would only last 
for a few minutes. This is obvious because returning astronauts' clocks are 
different by a hardly measurable amount.

2. A's direction of acceleration doesn't JUST change if he decides to 
return. It reverses at the MIDPOINT of the trip so he can slow and stop at 
the galactic center. If he returns if would have to change it again at 
midpoint.

So the points you make are not relevant to the discussion.

However note also that the DIRECTION of B's acceleration is also 
continually changing relative to A's motion simply because the earth is 
rotating. 

So how does any change in the direction of acceleration of A have an effect 
but the continual change in direction of B's acceleration does not?

Edgar

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:46:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> > One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, 
>> BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire 
>> trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on 
>> earth. So if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip 
>> how could A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same 
>> amount?
>>
>
> If A were going into space and accelerating upward off the surface of the 
> Earth at one g (32 feet per second per second), then he would be 
> experiencing 2g, one g from the Earth and one g from his continuing change 
> in upward velocity.
>
> > both = 1g throughout the entire trip
>>
>
> No, not during the entire trip. And if the space traveler ever wants to 
> return to Earth to rejoin his friend so they can directly compare their 
> clocks then he's going to have to change the direction of his acceleration 
> by 180 degrees. So their clocks will not match because their travel 
> experiences were not symmetrical. 
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
> BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
> trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on
> earth. So if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip
> how could A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same
> amount?
>

If A were going into space and accelerating upward off the surface of the
Earth at one g (32 feet per second per second), then he would be
experiencing 2g, one g from the Earth and one g from his continuing change
in upward velocity.

> both = 1g throughout the entire trip
>

No, not during the entire trip. And if the space traveler ever wants to
return to Earth to rejoin his friend so they can directly compare their
clocks then he's going to have to change the direction of his acceleration
by 180 degrees. So their clocks will not match because their travel
experiences were not symmetrical.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Liz,

But see my responses to John and Brent on this ..

The question I'd ask you is why "A's frame cannot be put into a single 
inertial frame of reference" if his 1g acceleration was exactly the same as 
B's 1g acceleration during the ENTIRE trip?

Are you saying that the simple fact that the DIRECTION of A's 1g 
acceleration REVERSED at midpoint is the ONLY cause of A's clock slowing 
relative to B's?

Thanks,
Edgar


On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:17:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark >wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
>>> A's clock slow 
>>>
>>
>> Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at 
>> near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the 
>> others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could 
>> shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is 
>> going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be 
>> symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see 
>> A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they 
>> would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.
>>
>> > So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be 
>>> ACTUAL (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, 
>>> and B's slow clock slowing doesn't? 
>>>
>>
>> Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.
>>
>> That's true, and can be rephrased as A's trajectory cannot be put into a 
> single inertial frame of reference, while B's can. Hence the symmetry 
> between them has to be broken at some point.
>
> There's an even simpler way to view this. A's path through space-time 
> forms two sides of a triangle, while B's forms the base. Since the two 
> sides of any triangle must be longer than the base, A must have taken a 
> longer path through space-time, which according to SR means he experienced 
> less duration. The twin paradox comes down to 4D geometry!
>
>

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent,

But see my response to John. How can that work since the accelerations are 
both = 1g throughout the entire trip? By the Principle of Equivalence 
shouldn't they have the same effect on time then?

But if you say it's not the acceleration, but the distance through 
spacetime, then the distance through spacetime as measured by whom? A sees 
B move the exact SAME distance at the exact SAME rate through spacetime as 
B sees A move.

So why then has only A's clock ACTUALLY slowed when he reaches the galactic 
center? That seems to imply that there is some real absolute background 
space that A traveled through but not B. It seems to imply that spatial 
motion relative to the galaxy is somehow real and absolute. Is that what 
you are saying? Isn't that notion inconsistent with relativity?

Another point:

A couple days ago you said "geometry doesn't slow time"
Yesterday you said "Everything is geometry"
Yet time does slow...
So aren't those 2 statements contradictory?

Edgar

On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:25:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
>  
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>  > A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
>> A's clock slow 
>>
>
>  Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling 
> at near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the 
> others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could 
> shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is 
> going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be 
> symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see 
> A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they 
> would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.
>  
>  > So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be 
>> ACTUAL (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, 
>> and B's slow clock slowing doesn't? 
>>
>
>  Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.
>
>
> That's right, but don't be misled into thinking it's the "stress" or 
> "force" of acceleration that "slows" the clock.  The acceleration just 
> changes the distance through spacetime.  It's not some effect that's making 
> the clock keep "the wrong time".
>
> Brent
>  

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Hi John,

One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, BUT 
the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire trip 
which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on earth. So 
if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip how could 
A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same amount?

Edgar



On Friday, January 31, 2014 1:59:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> > A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
>> A's clock slow 
>>
>
> Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at 
> near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the 
> others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could 
> shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is 
> going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be 
> symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see 
> A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they 
> would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.
>
> > So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL 
>> (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's 
>> slow clock slowing doesn't? 
>>
>
> Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread Kim Jones

Actually, John Clark wrote...



On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:34 pm, Kim Jones  wrote:

> 
> On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
>>> Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person 
>>> should know get tiresome too. 
> 
> 
> Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a positive effect on the mind's ability 
> to accept new input. Failing that, you might give dandelion coffee a go or 
> even cannabis. This last may prove fatal to your inflated self-confidence 
> concerning everything you write.
> 
> 
> Kim
>>>  
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
> 
> Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
> Mobile:   0450 963 719
> Landline: 02 9389 4239
> Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
> 
> "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile:   0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain




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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread Kim Jones


On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person should 
>> know get tiresome too. 


Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a positive effect on the mind's ability 
to accept new input. Failing that, you might give dandelion coffee a go or even 
cannabis. This last may prove fatal to your inflated self-confidence concerning 
everything you write.


Kim
>>  



Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile:   0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain




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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 31 Jan 2014, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have  
direct experience of the subjective.

> Nice for you.

Indeed.

> But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this  
to an other person,

I can't even prove that there is another person that I could present  
a potential proof to.

Exactly.

>> Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your  
subjective experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need  
to explain it. And if I do believe in your subjective experience  
then I can say it was caused by the way matter interacts (which can  
be fully described by information) just as I already know from  
direct experience that my subjective experience is caused.

> That mundane explanation might be locally valid, but your own idea  
that consciousness is not localized

Yes. Do you find a contradiction in that? I don't.

I don't either. Only an interesting problem for the computationalists.

> Indeed, you are presently delocalized into an infinity of  
computations,

And if Everett is correct there are a infinite number of Bruno  
Marchals , that would certainly be odd but where is the contradiction?

Nobody said there was a contradiction. Only an interesting problem.

>> And if I also believe that consciousness is fundamental, that is  
to say a sequence of "What caused that?" questions is not infinite  
and consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing more that  
can be said on the subject.

> Yes, but you have to invoke some non-comp to localize yourself in  
some unique reality

Fine, then feel free to "invoke some non-comp" or invoke more "comp"  
if that floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to  
find a consistent definition of your silly little word "comp" that  
is used on this list and nowhere else.

False. You stop at step 3, not step 0, which means that you accept the  
definition of comp provided here.

Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated  
person should know get tiresome too.

Childish immature remark.

>  once you believe that your consciousness is invariant for some  
"digital transformation"

I do believe that.

Good. That's comp.

> then you can begin to understand that we have to justify the  
physical from modalities associated to that those digital  
transformations.

Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of  
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk  
I'm pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in  
the johnkclak program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.

Only by a confusion 1p and 3p, that you illustrate the day you are  
stuck at the step 3.

> Somehow, you just say that you are not interested in the mind-body  
problem.

Well, nobody around here has said anything very interesting about  
the mind-body problem.

Because you confuse 1p and 3p, again and again and again, despite in  
some post you don't.

Which rise the question of what is your agenda.

And if the sequence of "what caused that?" questions are not  
infinite than after a certain point there just isn't anything more  
of interest to say about the mind-body problem.

That applies to all problem.

> Like you said once, we can't predict, in Helsinki,  W or M, and  
that's all.

I can't predict the answer because you haven't precisely formulated  
what the question is.

I did. You are the one systematically ADDING confusion, by dismissing  
the 1p/3p distinction, or asking for no relevant point on personal  
identity. You are the only person stuck in step 3 that I know.
I thank you for making public the kind of hand waving needed to stop  
there indeed.

Bruno

> I stay in the 3p, because in UDA we use only the most superficial  
aspect of the first person

I've looked yet again but I still don't see it:

http://uda.varsity.com/

 John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread LizR

On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> > A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
>> A's clock slow
>>
>
> Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
> near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the
> others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could
> shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is
> going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be
> symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see
> A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they
> would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.
>
> > So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL
>> (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's
>> slow clock slowing doesn't?
>>
>
> Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.
>
> That's true, and can be rephrased as A's trajectory cannot be put into a
single inertial frame of reference, while B's can. Hence the symmetry
between them has to be broken at some point.

There's an even simpler way to view this. A's path through space-time forms
two sides of a triangle, while B's forms the base. Since the two sides of
any triangle must be longer than the base, A must have taken a longer path
through space-time, which according to SR means he experienced less
duration. The twin paradox comes down to 4D geometry!

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread meekerdb

On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen > wrote:

> A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
A's clock slow

Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at near light 
speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the others clock as running 
slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could shake hands and directly compare the 
times their clocks show then A is going to have to accelerate, and then things would no 
longer be symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see A's 
clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they would not match, 
B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.

> So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL 
(agreed
by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's slow
clock slowing doesn't?

Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.

That's right, but don't be misled into thinking it's the "stress" or "force" of 
acceleration that "slows" the clock.  The acceleration just changes the distance through 
spacetime.  It's not some effect that's making the clock keep "the wrong time".

Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
>> experience of the subjective.
>>
>
> > Nice for you.
>

Indeed.

> But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this to an
> other person,
>

I can't even prove that there is another person that I could present a
potential proof to.

>> Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your subjective
>> experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need to explain it.
>> And if I do believe in your subjective experience then I can say it was
>> caused by the way matter interacts (which can be fully described by
>> information) just as I already know from direct experience that my
>> subjective experience is caused.
>>
>
> > That mundane explanation might be locally valid, but your own idea that
> consciousness is not localized

Yes. Do you find a contradiction in that? I don't.

> Indeed, you are presently delocalized into an infinity of computations,
>

And if Everett is correct there are a infinite number of Bruno Marchals ,
that would certainly be odd but where is the contradiction?

>> And if I also believe that consciousness is fundamental, that is to say
>> a sequence of "What caused that?" questions is not infinite and
>> consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing more that can be said
>> on the subject.
>>
>

> Yes, but you have to invoke some non-comp to localize yourself in some
> unique reality
>

Fine, then feel free to "invoke some non-comp" or invoke more "comp" if
that floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to find a
consistent definition of your silly little word "comp" that is used on this
list and nowhere else. Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend
every educated person should know get tiresome too.

>  once you believe that your consciousness is invariant for some "digital
> transformation"
>

I do believe that.

> then you can begin to understand that we have to justify the physical
> from modalities associated to that those digital transformations.
>

Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the johnkclak
program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.

> Somehow, you just say that you are not interested in the mind-body
> problem.
>

Well, nobody around here has said anything very interesting about the
mind-body problem. And if the sequence of "what caused that?" questions are
not infinite than after a certain point there just isn't anything more of
interest to say about the mind-body problem.

> Like you said once, we can't predict, in Helsinki,  W or M, and that's
> all.
>

I can't predict the answer because you haven't precisely formulated what
the question is.

> I stay in the 3p, because in UDA we use only the most superficial aspect
> of the first person
>

I've looked yet again but I still don't see it:

http://uda.varsity.com/

 John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
> A's clock slow
>

Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the
others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could
shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is
going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be
symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see
A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they
would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.

> So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL
> (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's
> slow clock slowing doesn't?
>

Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:14, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
>> the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full  
of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.

> I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a  
complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the  
subjective experience exist.

I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct  
experience of the subjective.

Nice for you. But that does not invalidate the point that you can't  
prove this to an other person, or in the 3p sense. You don't show that  
eliminativism is inconsistent.

I don't have direct experience of YOUR conscious experience because  
it is a logical contradiction, if I did have it you wouldn't be you,  
you'd be me.

> And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external  
objective effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the  
matter in your nose.

>Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective  
experience, then a  3p causal description at some level will explain  
the external objective effect without mentioning the subjective  
experience. I agree with you of course, but that is what makes a  
part of the problem.

Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your subjective  
experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need to explain  
it. And if I do believe in your subjective experience then I can say  
it was caused by the way matter interacts (which can be fully  
described by information) just as I already know from direct  
experience that my subjective experience is caused.

That mundane explanation might be locally valid, but your own idea  
that consciousness is not localized (which indeed follows from comp)  
introduces a major difficulty, or an interesting problem.

Indeed, you are presently delocalized into an infinity of  
computations, and matter make sense only if it obeys some statistics  
on the computations (the FPI on UD*, or the arithmetical FPI, as you  
should know by now).

And if I also believe that consciousness is fundamental, that is to  
say a sequence of "What caused that?" questions is not infinite and  
consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing more that can  
be said on the subject.

Yes, but you have to invoke some non-comp to localize yourself in some  
unique reality, with selection principles, etc. Just a lot of  
supplementary ad hoc hypotheses to put the problem under the rug.

But, once you believe that your consciousness is invariant for some  
"digital transformation", then you can begin to understand that we  
have to justify the physical from modalities associated to that those  
digital transformations. And the logic of self-reference, together  
with the most classical definition of knowledge, paves the way, with  
testable statements.

Somehow, you just say that you are not interested in the mind-body  
problem.

  I think consciousness is probably just the way information  
feels when it is being processed;

>>>In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness  
cannot be localized in one brain,

>> Yes, because computations can't be localized either.

> Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of  
object having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass.

And position not being relevant to consciousness is the reason your  
increasingly convoluted thought experiment about where the "real  
you" is located is worthless.

But I have never talk about any "real you". *you* have tried to link  
the FPI with the identity question, but this has been thoroughly  
invalidated more than one time, by different people. This is a bit  
gross.

I stay in the 3p, because in UDA we use only the most superficial  
aspect of the first person, that you mention above, and which is the  
direct access to the personal memory (technically, the one which is  
annihilated and reconstituted in the WM experiences).

Your difficulty on step 3 looks like a childish bad faith. I don't  
believe it. Ask question if you have a "real" difficulty, but don't  
use your traditional irrelevant dismissive and confusing rhetoric  
please.

Like you said once, we can't predict, in Helsinki,  W or M, and that's  
all. It is an arithmetical truth, no number can predict its next  
*first person* states in case of multiplication of its computations.  
If you believe that a number or a machine can do that, you have to  
provide an algorithm, or a proof that such an algorithm exists. It is  
a child play to explain that it cannot exist, already with the simple  
3p definition of the 1p used in the UDA.

Bruno

  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+unsu

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

PS on quoted post:

If, as you say, A's proper time (comoving clock) is running much slower all 
during (most of) the trip to the center of the galaxy, then doesn't that 
mean A would observe all the intergalactic stuff passing by him at MUCH 
greater than the speed of light? How would that work?

Stay at home observer B sees him traveling at just under the speed of 
light, but if A's proper time is actually slowing by a factor of 
~31000/20=1550 he must see himself traveling at much GREATER than the speed 
of light relative to the intergalactic stuff he is passing. Is that right?

Second, I seem to recall you saying that in the case of an observer falling 
through the event horizon of a black hole his own comoving clock (proper 
time) does NOT slow and he just observes himself falling right through it 
and reaching the singularity only 20 minutes later on his clock. 

So why is the comoving clock traveling to the center of the galaxy slowed 
but the comoving clock falling into a black hole isn't? In both cases we 
agree that a stationary observer watching back on earth sees these clocks 
both slowing don't we?

Thanks,
Edgar

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:11:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> So what you are saying is that because everything travels through 
> spacetime at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's 
> path through SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path 
> through time must be correspondingly shorter?
>
> At least that's my understanding and the way I'd express it.
>
> However according to what you said yesterday that the time slowing effect 
> is due to the longer travel time of photons due to relative motion away 
> from each other, wouldn't A see B's clock slow by the SAME amount that B 
> see's A's clock slow DURING the trip due to the equal and opposite relative 
> motion and the equally longer and longer time photons from each take to 
> reach the other? 
>
> But that seems to contradict the first result which implies A and B should 
> observe each other's clocks NOT slowing by the same rate DURING the trip 
> because A is actually moving in space and B isn't.
>
> So what's your explanation for the apparent contradiction?
>
> Thanks,
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:25:09 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>  
 Brent,

  Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation 
 for if I may...

 In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

 Two observers A and B.

 A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 
 light year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a 
 constant 1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive 
 stationary at the galactic center,

 Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on 
 B's clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the 
 spaceship.

 Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

 It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 
 1g acceleration for the duration of the trip.

 I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
 greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
 relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
 during the trip?

 And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how 
 does it actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both 
 observers can agree upon?

 You had said yesterday that "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" but 
 other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
 this case?

 What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?

>>>
>>> A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year << 
>>> 30,000yr.  So the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very 
>>> near c.  So the trip takes 30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But 
>>> the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if it were actually at 
>>> speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only, because 
>>> it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact 
>>> values you have to integrate the differential equations:
>>>
>>> dt/dtau = 1/gamma
>>> dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
>>> dx/dtau = v/gamma
>>>
>>> where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)
>>>
>>  
>>  The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g 
>> gravitational field throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation 
>> experienced by A can't be gravitational. All that leaves is the different 
>> distances they travel through s

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

So what you are saying is that because everything travels through spacetime 
at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's path through 
SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path through time 
must be correspondingly shorter?

At least that's my understanding and the way I'd express it.

However according to what you said yesterday that the time slowing effect 
is due to the longer travel time of photons due to relative motion away 
from each other, wouldn't A see B's clock slow by the SAME amount that B 
see's A's clock slow DURING the trip due to the equal and opposite relative 
motion and the equally longer and longer time photons from each take to 
reach the other? 

But that seems to contradict the first result which implies A and B should 
observe each other's clocks NOT slowing by the same rate DURING the trip 
because A is actually moving in space and B isn't.

So what's your explanation for the apparent contradiction?

Thanks,
Edgar



On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:25:09 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>  
>>> Brent,
>>>
>>>  Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for 
>>> if I may...
>>>
>>> In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.
>>>
>>> Two observers A and B.
>>>
>>> A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light 
>>> year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 
>>> 1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at 
>>> the galactic center,
>>>
>>> Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on 
>>> B's clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.
>>>
>>> Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?
>>>
>>> It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 
>>> 1g acceleration for the duration of the trip.
>>>
>>> I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
>>> greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
>>> relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
>>> during the trip?
>>>
>>> And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does 
>>> it actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both 
>>> observers can agree upon?
>>>
>>> You had said yesterday that "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" but 
>>> other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
>>> this case?
>>>
>>> What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?
>>>  
>>
>> A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year << 
>> 30,000yr.  So the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very 
>> near c.  So the trip takes 30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But 
>> the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if it were actually at 
>> speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only, because 
>> it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact 
>> values you have to integrate the differential equations:
>>
>> dt/dtau = 1/gamma
>> dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
>> dx/dtau = v/gamma
>>
>> where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)
>>
>  
>  The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g 
> gravitational field throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation 
> experienced by A can't be gravitational. All that leaves is the different 
> distances they travel through space-time to reach their final meeting, 
> which is indeed down to "geometry" (in this case involving curves rather 
> the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by 
> integrating the relevant equations, as indicated).
>
>  So I assume the overall geometry of their paths through space-time 
> *is*responsible for the final mismatch between their clocks. I'm not sure 
> whether that contradicts "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" - probably 
> not.
>  
>
> Exactly.  The clocks faithfully measure the interval along their 
> respective paths.  It's the difference in the paths, the geometry, that is 
> the difference in duration.
>
>   
>  PS I would instruct A to fly above the plane of the galaxy. There is a 
> lot of stuff between the Earth and the galactic centre and I suspect that 
> even a dust grain would hit a relativistic spacecraft like a nuclear bomb 
> once it was near peak velocity, which according to my calculations is 
> 0.995c (or in any case p.d.q.)
>  
>
> Even without dust the intergalactic hydrogen atoms would make it similar 
> to standing in the LHC beam - but with a lot more luminosity.
>
> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

First thanks for replying however you didn't address the question I'm 
really interested in.

Of course I understand that the travel is mostly close to the speed of 
light for most of the trip and that explains the extremity of the effect, 
but that wasn't my question.

My question is this:

A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees A's 
clock slow because as you pointed out in an earlier post it just takes 
light a lot further and further, and thus longer and longer, to reach B 
from A due to A's extreme velocity. No problem there.

However from A's POV it is B that is traveling at the exact same near light 
speed away from A for most of the trip. Therefore A should see B's clock 
slow by the exact same amount that B sees A's clock slow due to the exact 
same effect of photons taking longer and longer to reach A from B simply 
because they have to travel further.

So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL 
(agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's 
slow clock slowing doesn't? 

If both A and B see each other's clocks slow by the same amount due to the 
same effect of relative velocity during the trip then why is A's clock 
slowing real and B's isn't? 

Thanks,
Edgar

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:17:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for 
> if I may... 
> > 
> > In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example. 
> > 
> > Two observers A and B. 
> > 
> > A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light 
> year away, 
> > using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 1g 
> decelleration on the 
> > second half of the journey to arrive stationary at the galactic center, 
> > 
> > Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on 
> B's clock back on 
> > earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship. 
> > 
> > Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock? 
> > 
> > It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 
> 1g acceleration 
> > for the duration of the trip. 
> > 
> > I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
> greatly slowed due 
> > to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS relative 
> wouldn't A also observe 
> > B's clock to be slowed by the same amount during the trip? 
> > 
> > And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does 
> it actually 
> > produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both observers can 
> agree upon? 
> > 
> > You had said yesterday that "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" but 
> other than the 
> > trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in this case? 
> > 
> > What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result? 
>
> A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year << 
> 30,000yr.  So the 
> spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very near c.  So the trip 
> takes 30,100+ 
> years in the frame of the galaxy. But the proper time for the spaceship is 
> very small; if 
> it were actually at speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be 
> zero. Only, 
> because it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get 
> the exact values 
> you have to integrate the differential equations: 
>
>  dt/dtau = 1/gamma 
>  dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2 
>  dx/dtau = v/gamma 
>
> where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2) 
>
> Brent 
>
>
>

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >> the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full of
> drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.
>
> > I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a
> complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the subjective
> experience exist.
>

I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
experience of the subjective. I don't have direct experience of YOUR
conscious experience because it is a logical contradiction, if I did have
it you wouldn't be you, you'd be me.

> And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external objective
>> effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the matter in your
>> nose.
>>
>
>
>Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective
> experience, then a  3p causal description at some level will explain the
> external objective effect without mentioning the subjective experience. I
> agree with you of course, but that is what makes a part of the problem.
>

Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your subjective
experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need to explain it.
And if I do believe in your subjective experience then I can say it was
caused by the way matter interacts (which can be fully described by
information) just as I already know from direct experience that my
subjective experience is caused. And if I also believe that consciousness
is fundamental, that is to say a sequence of "What caused that?" questions
is not infinite and consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing
more that can be said on the subject.

  I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels when
 it is being processed;

>>>
>>> >>>In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness cannot
>>> be localized in one brain,
>>>
>>
>> >> Yes, because computations can't be localized either.
>>
>
> > Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of object
> having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass.
>

And position not being relevant to consciousness is the reason your
increasingly convoluted thought experiment about where the "real you" is
located is worthless.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus.
>

I have read Lao-tseu but as for Plotinus I've had my fill of ancestor
worship for one day.

  > and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth
> without using a truth predicate.
>

I did read that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auda_ibu_Tayi

But I don't see the relevance

  John k Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:50, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place  
where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would  
use "tao", that would make the results looking new-age. Use any  
another name, people will add more connotations than with the  
concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or  
monotheist big unique being or beyond being entity.


If I show it is empirically false that "Use any another name,  
people will add more connotations than with the concept of god,"  
will you stop using "God" and switch to "goar"?


See my papers: I do not use the word "God". I use it in this list,  
because I answered post using it.


It's my recollection that you used it first (and also "angels") it  
metaphorically describing the scope of unprovable truths in  
arithmetic - but it doesn't matter now.


Ah! Good memory! Yes I presented my "formal friends G and G*" in that  
way. I called G* the guardian angel of the machines.
It is a way to honor an argument by Judson Webb which shows the  
particular case of just Gödel's incompleteness theorem being the  
guardian angel of the Church thesis. Indeed you can look at Gödel's  
theorem as a confirmation of CT, as CT implies incompleteness  
rigorously in two informal lines.







In the Plotinus paper I use "the one".


OK.  Does that mean the same as "the ground of all reality"?


Ground still looks a bit too much physicalist to me, and does not  
convey the fact that the personhood of it is an open question.





If so, it seems a bit too specific in that assumes a singular.


Which confirms my point. God's main attribute is its unicity.

Plotinus' work can be sum up into how the ONE became MANY, and how the  
MANY can return to the ONE.




Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and  
0 might be the goar.  This would be consistent with theologies much  
older than Plotinus: Zoroastrian's good and evil.  Confucian yin and  
yang.


I don't think that the Yin and Yang is confucian. The book of  
transformation is older, I think. To verify.




And more recently Monod's necessity and chance.


Yin and Yang are not fundamental with comp, but can be explained by  
the tension between Bp which is quite "yin" and Bp & p, which is quite  
yang.


We should not equivocate "fundamentally important" and "primitive" (=  
has to be assumed, up to some equivalence, in the theory).


Bruno

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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter  
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his  
train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is  
still ignored by most scientists?


To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying  
"Now we have the answer to the fundamental question", which is  
just a crackpot kind of statement.


That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me.  Have you  
taken up mind reading, Bruno?  If one forms a theory in which  
matter is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter.  What you  
call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the  
world.  And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start  
with an axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by  
the equations and ostensively,


But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if  
only by the dream argument.


I didn't mean that what was fundamental was defined ostensively, but  
that instruments, apparatus, measurement results were.


You remind me Bohr, when defining an atom by the set of classical  
devices capable of measuring it.


Instruments are "fundamentally important", but useless as "primitive".










physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in  
fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done.  So you are factually  
wrong assuming "matter" is some blinding constraint on physics.


Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it  
is even an unconscious dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong  
on that idea. the success of aristotle is related to that.




The reason FPI is "ignored" by most scientists is that most  
scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.   
Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it,  
because he saw no way to do so.  And your own theory essentially  
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is  
ineffable.


To say "I don't believe in God" is quite clear to all those people  
who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that  
the fundamental questions are answered.


This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told  
me that physicalism is the only modern way to conceive reality, and  
those are known as fundamentalist atheists (even by moderate  
atheists). But I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name, etc.




When Mach said, "I don't believe in atoms." did it imply he knew  
what was fundamental?


That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not  
a theory. It is a concept.


Tell it to the bible thumpers.


I am not sure we can change their mind, they won't listen.  
Irrationalism is, alas, most of the time, immune to reason.






Those who write dictionaries belong to our era where theology is  
still a taboo subject.

Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.



I don't "defend" it; I accept that they know what their own words  
mean when they explain it to me - and I find the concept they have  
explained and named "God" unbelievable.


It is part of the original definition, note.



You seem to want to tell them that when they say "God" they don't  
mean what they think they mean and instead they must mean what you  
want the word to mean.


I ask nothing to them, or anyone for that matter. But usually  
intellectual christians are aware of the contribution of Plato and  
Aristotle in theology, and are interested in the fact that  
hypothetical reasoning (in comp for example) can give new light on  
them and on the difference between them. Of course they don't believe  
in fairy tales.


There is no use to convince people who believe or pretend to believe  
in fairy tales.
In fact, there is no way to use reason for people who does not want to  
use reason, but based their intimate conviction on authoritative  
arguments.


But if seriousness in theology come back, then the fairy tales will  
disappear by themselves, in one or two millennia. If we continue to  
mock the theological question and the use of the scientific attitude  
to address them, people will continue the wishful thinking, and will  
continue to believe or fake belief in the fairy tales and literal  
interpretations of texts.


Bruno












For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least  
attribute them to others.


Show one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non  
existence of God" can be said by an agnostic. But when said with  
the meaning that God has no referent, it means either "I disbelieve  
in fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in the  
modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body  
problem is a false problem" (and if you explain to them the FPI,  
you get n

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for 
if I may...

In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

Two observers A and B.

A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 
light year
away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 1g
decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at 
the
galactic center,

Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on 
B's clock
back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 
1g
acceleration for the duration of the trip.

I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
greatly
slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
relative
wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
during the trip?

And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how 
does it
actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both 
observers can
agree upon?

You had said yesterday that "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" but 
other
than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
this case?

What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?


A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year << 
30,000yr.  So
the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very near c.  So the 
trip takes
30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But the proper time for the 
spaceship is
very small; if it were actually at speed c, like a photon, its proper time 
lapse
would be zero. Only, because it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to 
be 20
years. To get the exact values you have to integrate the differential 
equations:

dt/dtau = 1/gamma
dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
dx/dtau = v/gamma

where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)


The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g gravitational field 
throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation experienced by A can't be 
gravitational. All that leaves is the different distances they travel through space-time 
to reach their final meeting, which is indeed down to "geometry" (in this case involving 
curves rather the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by 
integrating the relevant equations, as indicated).


So I assume the overall geometry of their paths through space-time /is/ responsible for 
the final mismatch between their clocks. I'm not sure whether that contradicts "geometry 
doesn't cause clocks to slow" - probably not.


Exactly.  The clocks faithfully measure the interval along their respective paths.  It's 
the difference in the paths, the geometry, that is the difference in duration.




PS I would instruct A to fly above the plane of the galaxy. There is a lot of stuff 
between the Earth and the galactic centre and I suspect that even a dust grain would hit 
a relativistic spacecraft like a nuclear bomb once it was near peak velocity, which 
according to my calculations is 0.995c (or in any case p.d.q.)


Even without dust the intergalactic hydrogen atoms would make it similar to standing in 
the LHC beam - but with a lot more luminosity.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/28/2014 6:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any authoritative
sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH collapses into the
singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the black hole.

Looking at Carroll's Wiki Bio it seems that a lot of his theories are highly speculative
and unconfirmed...

Here, on the other hand, is a quote from Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' which
says otherwise:

"The hole must be born when a star implodes upon itself; THE HOLE'S MASS, AT BIRTH MUST
BE THE SAME AS THE STAR'S; AND EACH TIME SOMETHING FALLS INTO THE HOLE, ITS MASS MUST GROW"

So what? Your question was about how does the gravity get out if the mass is inside the
BH. But the point is that when matter falls into the BH the mass of the BH increases but
there is still no matter inside. The matter is crushed into a singularity (in the
classical approximation of course) and what remains is a VACUUM solution to Einstein's
equations known as the Schwarzschild metric. The increased mass just went into warping
more spacetime. Notice that when Thorne describes and astronaut falling into a BH the
astronaut never encounters anything inside the BH except the singularity. And he assumes
the biggest know BH so that the astronaut reaches the singularity only 20hrs after
crossing the event horizon. So ANYTHING inside the BH will reach the singularity in 20hrs
or less. That's why a vacuum solution is a good model.

Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for
>> if I may...
>>
>> In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.
>>
>> Two observers A and B.
>>
>> A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light
>> year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant
>> 1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at
>> the galactic center,
>>
>> Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on B's
>> clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.
>>
>> Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?
>>
>> It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 1g
>> acceleration for the duration of the trip.
>>
>> I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be
>> greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS
>> relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount
>> during the trip?
>>
>> And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does
>> it actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both
>> observers can agree upon?
>>
>> You had said yesterday that "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" but
>> other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in
>> this case?
>>
>> What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?
>>
>
> A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year <<
> 30,000yr.  So the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very
> near c.  So the trip takes 30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But
> the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if it were actually at
> speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only, because
> it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact
> values you have to integrate the differential equations:
>
> dt/dtau = 1/gamma
> dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
> dx/dtau = v/gamma
>
> where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)
>

The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g
gravitational field throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation
experienced by A can't be gravitational. All that leaves is the different
distances they travel through space-time to reach their final meeting,
which is indeed down to "geometry" (in this case involving curves rather
the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by
integrating the relevant equations, as indicated).

So I assume the overall geometry of their paths through space-time
*is*responsible for the final mismatch between their clocks. I'm not
sure
whether that contradicts "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" - probably
not.

PS I would instruct A to fly above the plane of the galaxy. There is a lot
of stuff between the Earth and the galactic centre and I suspect that even
a dust grain would hit a relativistic spacecraft like a nuclear bomb once
it was near peak velocity, which according to my calculations is 0.995c
(or in any case p.d.q.)

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for if I
may...

In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

Two observers A and B.

A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light year away,
using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 1g decelleration on the
second half of the journey to arrive stationary at the galactic center,

Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on B's clock back on
earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration
for the duration of the trip.

I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be greatly slowed due
to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS relative wouldn't A also observe
B's clock to be slowed by the same amount during the trip?

And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does it actually
produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both observers can agree upon?

You had said yesterday that "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" but other than the
trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in this case?

What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?

A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year << 30,000yr. So the
spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very near c. So the trip takes 30,100+
years in the frame of the galaxy. But the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if
it were actually at speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only,
because it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact values
you have to integrate the differential equations:

dt/dtau = 1/gamma
dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
dx/dtau = v/gamma

where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)

Brent

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 05:13, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> > After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
>> Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
>>
>
> No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just "I do not believe in
> a personal God".  Besides not answering or even hearing our prayers
> Einstein's "God" has no purpose or goal ("I have never imputed to Nature a
> purpose or a goal").  And Einstein's God had no intelligence or
> consciousness ( God is not "anything that could be understood as
> anthropomorphic").  And Einstein's "God" has nothing to do with morality
> ("A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
> education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
> indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
> and hope of reward after death").
>
> To Einstein "God" meant  "the unbounded admiration for the structure of
> the world", which shows that even Einstein can fall in love with the sound
> of a word too much.
>

You are taking my comment out of context. *Based on the information
provided*, Bruno couldn't make the deduction he made.

And anyway, I was only teasing.

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 09:50, meekerdb  wrote:

> Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and 0
> might be the goar.
>
> John A. Wheeler also.

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 07:56, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:29, John Clark wrote:
> And there *might* be a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus too,
> but I doubt it.
>
> Sure, that is possible, but the proposition that God is a person or not
> might have more appreciable consequences than a china teapot in orbit
> around Uranus (if that is the case: congrats to the Chinese).
>
> LOL!

Well, almost. I probably would have if I wasn't sneakily reading this at
work.

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 04:47, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> > The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s
>>
>
> Yes, Hubble observed that the universe was expanding in the early 1920s,
> but only in the late 1990s was it discovered that the universe was not just
> expanding but accelerating due to something we don't understand at all that
> has been given the name "Dark Energy".
>

True.

>
> > a primordial explosion was *theorised* by Lemaitre,
>>
>
>  Lemaitre independently rediscovered a set of equations that were first
> found by Alexander Friedmann 5 years before.
>
> OK, but it was still theoretical, and remained so until the 60s when it
was confirmed, as far as anything in science can be, by Penzias and Wilson.
Which is what I said.

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we
should not attribute any importance. I would use "tao", that would make the results
looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the
concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being
or beyond being entity.

If I show it is empirically false that "Use any another name, people will add more
connotations than with the concept of god," will you stop using "God" and switch to "goar"?

See my papers: I do not use the word "God". I use it in this list, because I answered
post using it.

It's my recollection that you used it first (and also "angels") it metaphorically
describing the scope of unprovable truths in arithmetic - but it doesn't matter now.

In the Plotinus paper I use "the one".

OK. Does that mean the same as "the ground of all reality"? If so, it seems a bit too
specific in that assumes a singular. Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he
suggested that 1 and 0 might be the goar. This would be consistent with theologies much
older than Plotinus: Zoroastrian's good and evil. Confucian yin and yang. And more
recently Monod's necessity and chance.

Brent

In my thesis I even use "psychology" instead of theology. It is the idea which disturb
some dogmatic people, not the word. In publication, I have never hesitated to change the
vocabulary, but that hardly change anything. Scientists understand without much problem,
but dogmatic philosophers continue to lie on the works, and to be listened by
academician for authoritative reason.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter into a God, and
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments.
why do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists?

To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying "Now we have the
answer to the fundamental question", which is just a crackpot kind of statement.

That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me. Have you taken up mind reading,
Bruno? If one forms a theory in which matter is fundamental then matter=god, and
god=matter. What you call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the
world. And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an axiom defining
matter, it is just defined implicitly by the equations and ostensively,

But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if only by the
dream argument.

I didn't mean that what was fundamental was defined ostensively, but that instruments,
apparatus, measurement results were.

physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in fact that's exactly
what Tegmark has done. So you are factually wrong assuming "matter" is some blinding
constraint on physics.

Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it is even an unconscious
dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong on that idea. the success of aristotle is
related to that.

The reason FPI is "ignored" by /*most*/ scientists is that /*most*/ scientist judge
there is more progress to be made elsewhere. Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but
he didn't research it, because he saw no way to do so. And your own theory essentially
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is ineffable.

To say "I don't believe in God" is quite clear to all those people who write
dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the fundamental questions are
answered.

This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told me that physicalism
is the only modern way to conceive reality, and those are known as fundamentalist
atheists (even by moderate atheists). But I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name,
etc.

When Mach said, "I don't believe in atoms." did it imply he knew what was
fundamental?

That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not a theory. It is a
concept.

Tell it to the bible thumpers.

Those who write dictionaries belong to our era where theology is still a taboo
subject.
Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.

I don't "defend" it; I accept that they know what their own words mean when they explain
it to me - and I find the concept they have explained and named "God" unbelievable. You
seem to want to tell them that when they say "God" they don't mean what they think they
mean and instead they must mean what you want the word to mean.

For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least attribute them to
others.

Show one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non existence of God" can be
said by an agnostic. But when said with the meaning that God has no referent, it means
either "I disbelieve in fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in the
modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a false
problem" (and if you explain to them the FPI, you get no answer. In fact those people
ignore even the dialog).

OK, that's one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non existence of God"
when said with the meaning that God has no referent, may well mean that "God" is a word
that has been given so many inconsistent meanings that I find no sense in it and I see no
reason to try to put any in. OR it might mean that I fail to believe in a mystic
principle that organizes the universe and fine-tunes it to be hospitable to humans. OR
it might mean I fail to believe a race of aliens that have created this universe in a
digital simulation and want to be worshipped for it. So it is a logical error to infer:
it means either "I disbelieve in fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in
the modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a false
problem"

Scientists have to be agnostic on both primitive matter (no evidences exists at all for
it) and God, which exists trivially for everyone, once you take the original definition
which is at the base of fundamental science, as it is the bet that we can do research in
that domain.

First, it's NOT "the original definition"; it's just an OLD definition that you like. The
original definition of a god was a superhuman demiurge who caused inexplicable events like
volcanoes, storms, disease, and motion of the planets. "God" was defined by the Jews as

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 29 Jan 2014, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


> atheists are christians.

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


You should know that since age 12, then.

Bruno





John K Clark


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

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


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote

>> Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse  
that clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what  "the hard  
problem" is.

> In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of  
the brain seems to make consciousness into something having no role  
and no reason, and this contradicts the first person experience we  
have.

That's not true, the external objective environment (the weather, a  
syringe full of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big  
subjective change.

I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a  
complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the  
subjective experience exist. An interview of the person will not  
suffice, as you can explain everything without it, at the level of  
neurons and muscular cells.

And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external  
objective effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the  
matter in your nose.

Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective  
experience, then a  3p causal description at some level will explain  
the external objective effect without mentioning the subjective  
experience.

I agree with you of course, but that is what makes a part of the  
problem.

>> I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels  
when it is being processed;

> In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness  
cannot be localized in one brain,

Yes, because computations can't be localized either.

Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of object  
having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass.

>> if you don't find that explanation satisfactory it can only mean  
one thing, you don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.

> Good point. Consciousness can't be fundamental, especially in  
theories trying to explain it.

So if you say X causes consciousness you must either explain what  
causes X or say that X is fundamental.

Yes. I have said at the start the fundamental laws I adopt: it is  
classical logic +

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Bruno

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

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:29, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence  
and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the  
universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being  
then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle "God"?

> Yes, because it can still be something transcendent and  
responsible for your existence, and having no name

And that's the problem, you insist on giving the thing with no name  
a name, and a ridiculously inappropriate one too!

Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus. That is a false problem in theology,  
and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth  
without using a truth predicate. Then any "name" can be used as a  
pointer to that. We can only bet on. It is not granted.

> And we can also remain open that it *might* be a person

And there *might* be a china teapot in orbit around the planet  
Uranus too, but I doubt it.

Sure, that is possible, but the proposition that God is a person or  
not might have more appreciable consequences than a china teapot in  
orbit around Uranus (if that is the case: congrats to the Chinese).

Bruno

 John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> > atheists are christians.
>

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote

>> Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that
>> clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what  "the hard problem" is.
>>
>
>
> In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of the
> brain seems to make consciousness into something having no role and no
> reason, and this contradicts the first person experience we have.
>

That's not true, the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe
full of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change. And
a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external objective effect,
like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the matter in your nose.

>> I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels when it
>> is being processed;
>>
>
> > In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness cannot be
> localized in one brain,
>

Yes, because computations can't be localized either.

>> if you don't find that explanation satisfactory it can only mean one
>> thing, you don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.
>>
>
> > Good point. Consciousness can't be fundamental, especially in theories
> trying to explain it.
>

So if you say X causes consciousness you must either explain what causes X
or say that X is fundamental.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:13 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> > After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
>> Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
>>
>
> No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just "I do not believe in
> a personal God".  Besides not answering or even hearing our prayers
> Einstein's "God" has no purpose or goal ("I have never imputed to Nature a
> purpose or a goal").  And Einstein's God had no intelligence or
> consciousness ( God is not "anything that could be understood as
> anthropomorphic").  And Einstein's "God" has nothing to do with morality
> ("A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
> education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
> indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
> and hope of reward after death").
>
> To Einstein "God" meant  "the unbounded admiration for the structure of
> the world", which shows that even Einstein can fall in love with the sound
> of a word too much.
>

1. You ridicule theology, philosophy, different notions of god as empty
language games, no room for valid reasoning... 2. and now want to convince
us of your valid reasoning on the subject.

Point 1 in isolation explains your usual bigotry and arrogance, but both
points combined make sense for once.

Thanks for enlightening us with your insights! You are a formidable
philosopher by your own standards and definition. PGC


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

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if
>> the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not
>> intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it
>> adds to clarity to call that principle "God"?
>>
>
> > Yes, because it can still be something transcendent and responsible for
> your existence, and having no name
>

And that's the problem, you insist on giving the thing with no name a name,
and a ridiculously inappropriate one too!

> And we can also remain open that it *might* be a person
>

And there *might* be a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus too,
but I doubt it.

 John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR  wrote:

> After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
> Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
>

No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just "I do not believe in
a personal God".  Besides not answering or even hearing our prayers
Einstein's "God" has no purpose or goal ("I have never imputed to Nature a
purpose or a goal").  And Einstein's God had no intelligence or
consciousness ( God is not "anything that could be understood as
anthropomorphic").  And Einstein's "God" has nothing to do with morality
("A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death").

To Einstein "God" meant  "the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world", which shows that even Einstein can fall in love with the sound of a
word too much.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR  wrote:

> The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s
>

Yes, Hubble observed that the universe was expanding in the early 1920s,
but only in the late 1990s was it discovered that the universe was not just
expanding but accelerating due to something we don't understand at all that
has been given the name "Dark Energy".

> a primordial explosion was *theorised* by Lemaitre,
>

 Lemaitre independently rediscovered a set of equations that were first
found by Alexander Friedmann 5 years before.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-29 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for if 
I may...

In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

Two observers A and B. 

A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light 
year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 
1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at 
the galactic center,

Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on B's 
clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 1g 
acceleration for the duration of the trip.

I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
during the trip?

And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does it 
actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both observers 
can agree upon?

You had said yesterday that "geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow" but 
other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
this case?

What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?

Thanks,
Edgar

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:20:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your 
> interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an 
> open mind.
>  
>
> It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in 
> the absence of matter (you know what "vacuum" means?), forms a BH.  If you 
> added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into 
> the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH.
>
>  
>  And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who 
> is presumably your friend says via an email.
>  
>
> So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look 
> him up!?  
>
> I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar.
>
> Brent
>
>  Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources 
> who agree with you that
>  1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
> 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
> of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event 
> horizon by the matter entering the black hole.
>
>  I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
> correction if you can provide some authoritative ones.
>
>  And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution 
> which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or 
> at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the 
> black hole that produces the event horizon.
>
>  Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you 
> produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported..
>
>  Edgar
>
>  
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>
> On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and 
> several others (eg. 
> > http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: 
> Inside Black Holes of 
> > 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say 
> what you are 
> > saying, namely that 
> > 
> > 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 
> > 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
> of it but to 
> > the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by 
> the matter 
> > entering the black hole. 
> > 
> > I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
> correction if you can 
> > provide an authoritative one. 
>
> You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the 
> Schwarzschild BH 
> solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? 
>
> > 
> > In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on 
> the basis of 
> > which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of 
> the Schwarzchild 
> > solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created 
> by the mass 
> > INSIDE IT. 
>
> But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the 
> same field outside 
> the event horizon.  As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, 
> but it doesn't 
> follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to 
> "send out gravity". 
>
> > 
> > So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black 
> hole or do you 
> > have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain 
> English you can 
> > provide? 
> > 
> > N

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 Jan 2014, at 20:01, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, LizR  wrote:

> I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein  
quotes floating around the web.

They were real, real enough to provoke a furious response from   
thousands of American hillbillies in the 1930's such as:

"Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will  
answer you, "We will not give up our belief in our God and his son  
Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of  
the people of this nation, to go back where you came from." I have  
done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you  
come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do  
more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the  
Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our  
land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will  
immediately reply to you, "Take your crazy, fallacious theory of  
evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying  
to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you  
were forced to flee your native land."

"We deeply regret that you made your statement in which you ridicule  
the idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been  
so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to  
expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right  
to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as  
one of the greatest sources of discord in America."

All this makes my point. Einstein provides a good example of someone  
believing in God, but not the God of the institution. You seem to  
share the regret of the Christians, which confirms my feeling that  
atheists defend the christian conception of God, against all others.  
As I said, in absolute value, atheists are christians. You don't like  
this, but you keep defending the christian idea of God.

Bruno

  John K Clark

On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark  wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of  
that book is really informative about Einstein's religion.

Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein  
himself had to say about God:

"it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious  
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not  
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have  
expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be called  
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of  
the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And:

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything  
that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is  
a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very  
imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of  
humility"

And:

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even  
naive."

And:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,  
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man  
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of  
punishment and hope of reward after death."

And:

"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe  
at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate  
senses to appreciate it."

Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was  
sometimes guilty of the same sin that members of this list  
habitually commit, falling in love not with the concept but with the  
English word "God" when all Einstein meant is "awe at the structure  
of the world".

> John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks,

John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous  
ignorance and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship  
that is epidemic on the everything list.

> John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians.

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

  John K Clark

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

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

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

To post to this group, send email to everyt

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would  
nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a  
universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR  
is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or  
immutable.


Those are the properties of the "god" of computationalism:  
arithmetical truth


So you're choosing the attributes of goar to match the theory of  
comp?  Well I guess that's one way to know what goar is - and a  
popular way at that.

...

  If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with  
you, let's just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is  
not necessarily a goar.


There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an  
explaination of.


But the ground of all reality, goar, isn't necessarily transcendent,  
infinite, etc... or even singular.  If this is science and not  
religion we must find out what goar is and its attributes - not  
assume them at the start.


?

We can only assume, and then correct the theory from the observation  
of facts and the internal coherence.


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.


Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the  
rise of monotheism and the rise of monism. The idea that there is a  
unique reality. That is the motor of the fundamental inquiry. It  
has given the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned to  
politics.


But there was no "rise of monotheism" following Parmenides.


?


It rose following the Jews, who insisted that only *their* great-man- 
in-the-sky was really real.



Well, it is often said that the christian stole the jewish legend and  
the greek theology. Unfortunately, they took as much of Aristotle than  
Plato, notably the notion of primitive substance, doubly so for the  
catholics.


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place  
where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use  
"tao", that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another  
name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of  
god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique  
being or beyond being entity.


If I show it is empirically false that "Use any another name, people  
will add more connotations than with the concept of god," will you  
stop using "God" and switch to "goar"?


See my papers: I do not use the word "God". I use it in this list,  
because I answered post using it. In the Plotinus paper I use "the  
one". In my thesis I even use "psychology" instead of theology. It is  
the idea which disturb some dogmatic people, not the word. In  
publication, I have never hesitated to change the vocabulary, but that  
hardly change anything. Scientists understand without much problem,  
but dogmatic philosophers continue to lie on the works, and to be  
listened by academician for authoritative reason.


Bruno



Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter  
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his  
train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still  
ignored by most scientists?


To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying  
"Now we have the answer to the fundamental question", which is just  
a crackpot kind of statement.


That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me.  Have you  
taken up mind reading, Bruno?  If one forms a theory in which matter  
is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter.  What you call it  
makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the world.   
And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an  
axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by the  
equations and ostensively,


But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if only  
by the dream argument.




physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in  
fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done.  So you are factually  
wrong assuming "matter" is some blinding constraint on physics.


Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it is  
even an unconscious dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong on that  
idea. the success of aristotle is related to that.




The reason FPI is "ignored" by most scientists is that most  
scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.   
Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it,  
because he saw no way to do so.  And your own theory essentially  
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is  
ineffable.


To say "I don't believe in God" is quite clear to all those people  
who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the  
fundamental questions are answered.


This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told me  
that physicalism is the only modern way to conceive reality, and those  
are known as fundamentalist atheists (even by moderate atheists). But  
I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name, etc.




When Mach said, "I don't believe in atoms." did it imply he knew  
what was fundamental?


That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not a  
theory. It is a concept. Those who write dictionaries belong to our  
era where theology is still a taboo subject.

Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.





For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least  
attribute them to others.


Show one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non  
existence of God" can be said by an agnostic. But when said with the  
meaning that God has no referent, it means either "I disbelieve in  
fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in the modern  
myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem  
is a false problem" (and if you explain to them the FPI, you get no  
answer. In fact those people ignore even the dialog).
Scientists have to be agnostic on both primitive matter (no evidences  
exists at all for it) and God, which exists trivially for everyone,  
once you take the original definition which is at the base of  
fundamental science, as it is the bet that we can do research in that  
domain. It is the bet in a fundamental reality and the acknowledgment  
we don't know it.


Bruno


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent,

That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any 
authoritative sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH 
collapses into the singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the 
black hole.

Looking at Carroll's Wiki Bio it seems that a lot of his theories are 
highly speculative and unconfirmed...

Here, on the other hand, is a quote from Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time 
Warps' which says otherwise:

"The hole must be born when a star implodes upon itself; THE HOLE'S MASS, 
AT BIRTH MUST BE THE SAME AS THE STAR'S; AND EACH TIME SOMETHING FALLS INTO 
THE HOLE, ITS MASS MUST GROW"

So again your theory is a highly speculative INTERPRETATION of the 
equations you mention which so far as you can demonstrate is NOT a 
mainstream scientific understanding of BH's.

So who's hopeless now? (I wouldn't have added this barb if you hadn't BTW)

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:20:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your 
> interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an 
> open mind.
>  
>
> It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in 
> the absence of matter (you know what "vacuum" means?), forms a BH.  If you 
> added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into 
> the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH.
>
>  
>  And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who 
> is presumably your friend says via an email.
>  
>
> So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look 
> him up!?  
>
> I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar.
>
> Brent
>
>  Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources 
> who agree with you that
>  1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
> 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
> of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event 
> horizon by the matter entering the black hole.
>
>  I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
> correction if you can provide some authoritative ones.
>
>  And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution 
> which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or 
> at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the 
> black hole that produces the event horizon.
>
>  Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you 
> produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported..
>
>  Edgar
>
>  
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>
> On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and 
> several others (eg. 
> > http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: 
> Inside Black Holes of 
> > 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say 
> what you are 
> > saying, namely that 
> > 
> > 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 
> > 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
> of it but to 
> > the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by 
> the matter 
> > entering the black hole. 
> > 
> > I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
> correction if you can 
> > provide an authoritative one. 
>
> You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the 
> Schwarzschild BH 
> solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? 
>
> > 
> > In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on 
> the basis of 
> > which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of 
> the Schwarzchild 
> > solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created 
> by the mass 
> > INSIDE IT. 
>
> But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the 
> same field outside 
> the event horizon.  As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, 
> but it doesn't 
> follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to 
> "send out gravity". 
>
> > 
> > So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black 
> hole or do you 
> > have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain 
> English you can 
> > provide? 
> > 
> > Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the 
> matter inside a 
> > black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, 
>
> I doesn't pop up somewhere else.  Remember mass and energy are the same 
> thing in GR.  One 
> way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, 
> i.e. is takes a 
> lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity.  Gravity in GR is 
> non-linear so it 
> "pulls on itself", that's why it makes a singularit

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread LizR

I imagine this is he:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll

That took a good 5 seconds!

On the subject of a BH not containing matter, surely that depends on
whether there really *is* a singularity inside it? If it's a genuine
singularity, as GR suggests, then any original matter that went into its
formation has disappeared down an infinite plughole, and there's no way to
tell if the BH was formed from matter, antimatter, energy, vacuum
fluctuations, gravitational waves, or whatever else is possible. The
resulting object only has mass, spin and electric charge. (The famous "no
hair" theorem.)

(By the way, what's so special about electromagnetism that it leaves an
imprint on a BH when the weak force and hypercharge and whatever other
oddities are around don't?)

However, the no hair theorem runs afoul of the equally famous "BH
information paradox". QM at least suggests that something may turn out to
be necessary besides the GR formulation, and that whatever it is will allow
the information about what went into making the BH to (very much in
principle) be recoverable.




On 29 January 2014 13:20, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
>  I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your
> interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an
> open mind.
>
>
> It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in
> the absence of matter (you know what "vacuum" means?), forms a BH.  If you
> added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into
> the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH.
>
>
>
>  And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who
> is presumably your friend says via an email.
>
>
> So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look
> him up!?
>
> I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar.
>
> Brent
>
>
>  Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources
> who agree with you that
>  1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
> 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside
> of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event
> horizon by the matter entering the black hole.
>
>  I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to
> correction if you can provide some authoritative ones.
>
>  And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution
> which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or
> at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the
> black hole that produces the event horizon.
>
>  Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you
> produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported..
>
>  Edgar
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> > Brent,
>> >
>> > Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and
>> several others (eg.
>> > http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13:
>> Inside Black Holes of
>> > 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources
>> say what you are
>> > saying, namely that
>> >
>> > 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
>> > 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass
>> inside of it but to
>> > the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by
>> the matter
>> > entering the black hole.
>> >
>> > I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to
>> correction if you can
>> > provide an authoritative one.
>>
>> You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the
>> Schwarzschild BH
>> solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0?
>>
>> >
>> > In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on
>> the basis of
>> > which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of
>> the Schwarzchild
>> > solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created
>> by the mass
>> > INSIDE IT.
>>
>> But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the
>> same field outside
>> the event horizon.  As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space,
>> but it doesn't
>> follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to
>> "send out gravity".
>>
>> >
>> > So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black
>> hole or do you
>> > have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain
>> English you can
>> > provide?
>> >
>> > Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the
>> matter inside a
>> > black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else,
>>
>> I doesn't pop up somewhere else.  Remember mass and energy are the same
>> thing in GR.  One
>> way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational
>> energy, i.e. is takes a
>> l

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves 
1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind.

It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in the absence of 
matter (you know what "vacuum" means?), forms a BH.  If you added matter to the 
Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into the singularity with a 
corresponding increase in the size of the BH.

And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is presumably 
your friend says via an email.

So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look him 
up!?

I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar.

Brent

Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources who agree with you 
that

1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to 
the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter 
entering the black hole.

I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can 
provide some authoritative ones.

And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution which clearly is 
based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or at least most physicists, 
agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the black hole that produces the event horizon.

Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you produce any? If 
not I find your explanation unsupported..

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and 
several others
(eg.
> http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html
) and reread Chapter 13: 
Inside Black
Holes of
> 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say 
what you are
> saying, namely that
>
> 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
> 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
of it but to
> the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the 
matter
> entering the black hole.
>
> I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
correction if you
can
> provide an authoritative one.

You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the 
Schwarzschild BH
solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0?

>
> In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on 
the basis of
> which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the
Schwarzchild
> solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created 
by the mass
> INSIDE IT.

But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the 
same field
outside
the event horizon.  As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, 
but it doesn't
follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to "send 
out
gravity".

>
> So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black 
hole or do
you
> have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain 
English you can
> provide?
>
> Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the 
matter inside a
> black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else,

I doesn't pop up somewhere else.  Remember mass and energy are the same 
thing in GR.
 One
way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, 
i.e. is
takes a
lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity.  Gravity in GR is 
non-linear
so it
"pulls on itself", that's why it makes a singularity (classically).  
Hawking the
radiation
is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles.

> but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you 
must
come up
> with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to 
contain
all the
> mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't 
actually there
anymore.
>
> Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of 
the above.

No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in 
fact there is
speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from
fluctuations in
the metric.  Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of the 
Milky
Way were
created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in.

>
> Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual 
authoritative
> reference that states your 1

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>  Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would nominate the
>> strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer,
>> why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite,
>> transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable.
>>
>
>  Those are the properties of the "god" of computationalism: arithmetical
> truth
>
>
> So you're choosing the attributes of goar to match the theory of comp?
> Well I guess that's one way to know what goar is - and a popular way at
> that.
> ...
>
>
You have removed my quote from its original context, in which I was
providing various examples of God-like things which various theories
(popular on this list) are a direct consequence of.



>
>If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you,
>> let's just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not
>> necessarily a goar.
>>
>
>  There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an
> explaination of.
>
>
> But the ground of all reality, goar, isn't necessarily transcendent,
> infinite, etc... or even singular.
>

Right, so let's try and find out.


> If this is science and not religion
>

That's a false dichotomy. Why not apply scientific methods in the
furtherance of religion?


> we must find out what goar is and its attributes - not assume them at the
> start.
>

I agree.

Jason

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent,

I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation 
that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind.

And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is 
presumably your friend says via an email.

Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources who 
agree with you that
1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of 
it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event 
horizon by the matter entering the black hole.

I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction 
if you can provide some authoritative ones.

And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution which 
clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or at 
least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the black 
hole that produces the event horizon.

Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you 
produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported..

Edgar


On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and 
> several others (eg. 
> > http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: 
> Inside Black Holes of 
> > 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say 
> what you are 
> > saying, namely that 
> > 
> > 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 
> > 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
> of it but to 
> > the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by 
> the matter 
> > entering the black hole. 
> > 
> > I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
> correction if you can 
> > provide an authoritative one. 
>
> You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the 
> Schwarzschild BH 
> solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? 
>
> > 
> > In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on 
> the basis of 
> > which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of 
> the Schwarzchild 
> > solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created 
> by the mass 
> > INSIDE IT. 
>
> But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the 
> same field outside 
> the event horizon.  As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, 
> but it doesn't 
> follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to 
> "send out gravity". 
>
> > 
> > So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black 
> hole or do you 
> > have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain 
> English you can 
> > provide? 
> > 
> > Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the 
> matter inside a 
> > black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, 
>
> I doesn't pop up somewhere else.  Remember mass and energy are the same 
> thing in GR.  One 
> way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, 
> i.e. is takes a 
> lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity.  Gravity in GR is 
> non-linear so it 
> "pulls on itself", that's why it makes a singularity (classically). 
>  Hawking the radiation 
> is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles. 
>
> > but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so 
> you must come up 
> > with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to 
> contain all the 
> > mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't 
> actually there anymore. 
> > 
> > Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of 
> the above. 
>
> No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in 
> fact there is 
> speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from 
> fluctuations in 
> the metric.  Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of 
> the Milky Way were 
> created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in. 
>
> > 
> > Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual 
> authoritative 
> > reference that states your 1. and 2.? 
>
> No, it's common knowledge.   Here's Sean Carroll's email, 
> seanc...@gmail.com ; ask him. 
>
> > 
> > BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate 
> world? 
>
> I'm retired.  I worked for the U.S. Navy. 
>
> Brent 
>

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of
'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are
saying, namely that

1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to
the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter
entering the black hole.

I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can
provide an authoritative one.

You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the Schwarzschild BH
solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0?

In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of
which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild
solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass
INSIDE IT.

But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the same field outside
the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, but it doesn't
follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to "send out gravity".

So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you
have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can
provide?

Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a
black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else,

I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same thing in GR. One
way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, i.e. is takes a
lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is non-linear so it
"pulls on itself", that's why it makes a singularity (classically). Hawking the radiation
is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles.

but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you must come up
with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to contain all the
mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore.

Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the
above.

No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in fact there is
speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from fluctuations in
the metric. Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of the Milky Way were
created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in.

Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual authoritative
reference that states your 1. and 2.?

No, it's common knowledge. Here's Sean Carroll's email,
seancarr...@gmail.com; ask him.

BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate world?

I'm retired. I worked for the U.S. Navy.

Brent

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent,

Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several 
others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 
13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and 
NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that

1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of 
it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event 
horizon by the matter entering the black hole.

I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction 
if you can provide an authoritative one.

In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the 
basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading 
of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black 
hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT.

So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black 
hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that 
in plain English you can provide?

Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the 
matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up 
somewhere else, but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. 
And if so you must come up with a VERY convincing argument that explains 
why a BH still appears to contain all the mass producing its gravitational 
field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore.

Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the 
above.

Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual 
authoritative reference that states your 1. and 2.?

BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate 
world?

Best,
Edgar

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:20:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Liz, 
>
>  No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the 
> difference.
>
>  My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the 
> uneven Hubble expansion of space around galaxies.
>
>  The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble 
> expansion. It seems to be as if moving masses left their gravitational 
> field behind them as they entered BHs. There is no known case in which 
> moving masses leave their gravitational fields behind them. That seems to 
> me to contradict GR.
>
>  Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still 
> causes gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he 
> believes.
>  
>
> All you would have had to do is look at the Wikipedia:
>
> =
> Deriving the Schwarzschild solution The Schwarzschild 
> solutionis one of the 
> simplest and most useful solutions of the Einstein 
> field equations (see 
> general 
> relativity ). It 
> describes spacetime  in the 
> vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically-symmetric object. It is 
> worthwhile deriving this metric in some detail; the following is a 
> reasonably rigorous derivation that is not always seen in the textbooks. 
>
> Working in a coordinate 
> chartwith coordinates [image: 
> \left(r, \theta, \phi, t \right)] labelled 1 to 4 respectively, we begin 
> with the metric in its most general form (10 independent components, each 
> of which is a smooth function of 4 variables). The solution is assumed to 
> be spherically symmetric, static and vacuum. For the purposes of this 
> article, these assumptions may be stated as follows (see the relevant links 
> for precise definitions):
>
> (1) A spherically symmetric 
> spacetimeis one 
> in which all metric components are unchanged under any 
> rotation-reversal [image: \theta \rightarrow - \theta] or [image: \phi 
> \rightarrow - \phi].
>
> (2) A static spacetime  is 
> one in which all metric components are independent of the time coordinate 
> [image: 
> t] (so that [image: \frac {\part g_{\mu \nu}}{\part t}=0]) and the 
> geometry of the spacetime is unchanged under a time-reversal [image: t 
> \rightarrow -t].
>
> (3) A *vacuum solution 
> * is one that 
> satisfies the equation [image: T_{ab}=0]. From the Einstein field 
> equations  (with 
> zero cosmological 
> constant), 
> this implies that [image: R_{ab}=0] (after contracting [image: 
> R_{ab}-\frac{R}{2} g_{ab}=0] and putting [image: R = 0]).
>
> (4) Metric signatu

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, LizR  wrote:

> I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
> floating around the web.
>

They were real, real enough to provoke a furious response from  thousands
of American hillbillies in the 1930's such as:

"Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer
you, "We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ,
but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this
nation, to go back where you came from." I have done everything in my power
to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement
from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than
all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out
anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America
will immediately reply to you, "Take your crazy, fallacious theory of
evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to
break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were
forced to flee your native land."

"We deeply regret that you made your statement in which you ridicule the
idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so
calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the
Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I
still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest
sources of discord in America."

  John K Clark








>
>
> On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> > John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
>>> book is really informative about Einstein's religion.
>>>
>>
>> Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
>> had to say about God:
>>
>> "it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
>> lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
>> God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.  If
>> something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
>> admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal
>> it."
>>
>> And:
>>
>> "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that
>> could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a
>> magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and
>> that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility"
>>
>> And:
>>
>> "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
>>
>> And:
>>
>> "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
>> education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
>> indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
>> and hope of reward after death."
>>
>> And:
>>
>> "I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at
>> the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to
>> appreciate it."
>>
>> Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was sometimes
>> guilty of the same sin that members of this list habitually commit, falling
>> in love not with the concept but with the English word "God" when all
>> Einstein meant is "awe at the structure of the world".
>>
>> > John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks,
>>>
>>
>> John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous
>> ignorance and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship that is
>> epidemic on the everything list.
>>
>> > John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
>> that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everyth

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>> But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
>> I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
>> goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
>> existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is
>> not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle
>> "God"?
>>
>
> > I consider this question equivalent to asking "If there is no elan vital
> found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms
> life?"
>

Elan vital has never been found in organisms, or in anything else for that
matter, so the obvious answer is YES, otherwise there would NEVER be an
occasion to use the word "life" (except in the negative, but if every
physical thing is not X then X is of no interest whatsoever) and the word
"life" should be retired from the English language.

> > I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God,
>

I agree, but neither omniscience nor omnipotence are among those key ideas
behind the word God, the idea that He created the universe is closer to
that core but still not quite there; after all the supreme being need not
be perfect or infinite, He or she  (it needs to be a being, if it's a "it"
then it's not God) needs only to be better than the competition.

But calling something "God" (as Einstein regrettably did) that has no goal
and no purpose, that has zero intelligence and zero consciousness, that has
nothing to do with morality, that does not hear our prayers much less
answer them, and is not even a being is equivalent to calling something a
"dog" even though the thing can not bark, does not have 4 legs, is not a
mammal or even a vertebrate, needs to be plugged in and is very good at
opening cans. To avoid confusion I would not call such a thing a dog, I
would call it what it is, an electric can opener.

 John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Liz,

No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the difference.

My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven Hubble 
expansion of space around galaxies.


The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble expansion. It seems to 
be as if moving masses left their gravitational field behind them as they entered BHs. 
There is no known case in which moving masses leave their gravitational fields behind 
them. That seems to me to contradict GR.


Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still causes 
gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he believes.


All you would have had to do is look at the Wikipedia:

=


 Deriving the Schwarzschild solution

The Schwarzschild solution  is one of 
the simplest and most useful solutions of the Einstein field equations 
 (see general relativity 
). It describes spacetime 
 in the vicinity of a non-rotating massive 
spherically-symmetric object. It is worthwhile deriving this metric in some detail; the 
following is a reasonably rigorous derivation that is not always seen in the textbooks.


Working in a coordinate chart  with 
coordinates \left(r, \theta, \phi, t \right) labelled 1 to 4 respectively, we begin with 
the metric in its most general form (10 independent components, each of which is a smooth 
function of 4 variables). The solution is assumed to be spherically symmetric, static and 
vacuum. For the purposes of this article, these assumptions may be stated as follows (see 
the relevant links for precise definitions):


(1) A spherically symmetric spacetime 
 is one in which all metric 
components are unchanged under any rotation-reversal \theta \rightarrow - \theta or \phi 
\rightarrow - \phi.


(2) A static spacetime  is one in which all 
metric components are independent of the time coordinate t (so that \frac {\part g_{\mu 
\nu}}{\part t}=0) and the geometry of the spacetime is unchanged under a time-reversal t 
\rightarrow -t.


(3) A /*vacuum solution */ is one 
that satisfies the equation T_{ab}=0. From the Einstein field equations 
 (with zero cosmological constant 
), this implies that R_{ab}=0 (after 
contracting R_{ab}-\frac{R}{2} g_{ab}=0 and putting R = 0).


(4) Metric signature  used here 
is (-,+,+,+).

===


But apparently learning something is not on your agenda.


Brent


Mass is one of the few things BHs DO have

Edgar



On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:25:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect 
outside the
event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing 
can go
faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?

Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears
completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside 
and
that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space 
warping from
the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a 
pretty crazy
idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space warping behind in 
any
other circumstances.*


I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy would 
leave behind
a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone somewhere else.

Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that 
caused it.
At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is 
why it's
called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other all 
the time.
Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original 
galactic
mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can go 
anywhere
it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter can...



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

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would nominate the 
strings of
string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would 
suppose
in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), 
eternal,
or immutable.


Those are the properties of the "god" of computationalism: arithmetical truth


So you're choosing the attributes of goar to match the theory of comp?  Well I guess 
that's one way to know what goar is - and a popular way at that.

...


  If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, 
let's just
call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not necessarily a goar.


There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an explaination 
of.


But the ground of all reality, goar, isn't necessarily transcendent, infinite, etc... or 
even singular.  If this is science and not religion we must find out what goar is and its 
attributes - not assume them at the start.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.


Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise of monotheism and 
the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique reality. That is the motor of the 
fundamental inquiry. It has given the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned 
to politics.


But there was no "rise of monotheism" following Parmenides.  It rose following the Jews, 
who insisted that only *their* great-man-in-the-sky was really real.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we 
should not attribute any importance. I would use "tao", that would make the results 
looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the 
concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being or 
beyond being entity.


If I show it is empirically false that "Use any another name, people will add more 
connotations than with the concept of god," will you stop using "God" and switch to "goar"?


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter into a God, and 
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments. why 
do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists?


To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying "Now we have the answer 
to the fundamental question", which is just a crackpot kind of statement.


That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me.  Have you taken up mind reading, 
Bruno?  If one forms a theory in which matter is fundamental then matter=god, and 
god=matter.  What you call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the 
world.  And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an axiom defining 
matter, it is just defined implicitly by the equations and ostensively, physics could 
reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in fact that's exactly what Tegmark has 
done.  So you are factually wrong assuming "matter" is some blinding constraint on 
physics. The reason FPI is "ignored" by /*most*/ scientists is that /*most*/ scientist 
judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.  Everett introduced the idea of FPI, 
but he didn't research it, because he saw no way to do so.  And your own theory 
essentially supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is ineffable.


To say "I don't believe in God" is quite clear to all those people who write dictionaries 
and has nothing to do with claiming that the fundamental questions are answered.  When 
Mach said, "I don't believe in atoms." did it imply he knew what was fundamental?  For a 
logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least attribute them to others.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and most of the time, such eliminativism is a progress. WE eliminate the terms of 
the obsolete theories, like phlogiston, or like the cold and hot atoms of Lavoisier, or 
the N rays, etc.


Just as an aside, "N rays" is now used to describe neutron radiography

http://www.nray.ca/nray/res_XvsN.php

I laugh every time I see an engineering specification that calls out "N ray inspection".  
Engineers never heard of Blondlot.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>>
>>> So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
>>> don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: "Wow, I can't believe we
>>> built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them
>>> until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't
>>> give a sh*t how to get there..." Science that advances by eliminativism
>>> comes with a price and some side-effects.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it.  We
>>> eliminated the Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we
>>> don't get pyramids anymore - and I'd call it progress.
>>>
>>
>> Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: "Wow, look at all
>> this amazing customized digital technology we have", waving around an
>> iphone, "that's because where they build these things, people are so
>> miserable they have to deploy nets outside the factories to keep them from
>> jumping off the effin roofs...
>>
>>
>> There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area.  Given
>> the numbers I don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere.
>> Universities in the U.S. also have high suicide rate.
>>
>> "At Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., there have been six confirmed
>> suicides this academic year, including two on successive days last month.
>> Last week, Cornell installed chain-link fencing along many of the bridges
>> that cross the gorges on campus, serving both as deterrent and a physical
>> reminder.
>>
>> According to a 2009 article in Professional Psychology, 6 percent of
>> participating undergraduates and 4 percent of graduate students in four-year
>> colleges said they had "seriously considered attempting suicide" in the past
>> year--and nearly half of each group did not tell anyone."
>
>
> Agreed and you make my point.
>
> The possible maturing from a critical naiveté, in terms of implications of
> beliefs, their negation, naturalization through sustaining self-legitimizing
> histories as falsely true (e.g. through creation and unquestioning beliefs
> in institutional function, which includes exploiting factory floors, forcing
> obedience in conventions through education systems, reliance on fossil
> fuels, overemphasis on weapons manufacture etc.), that result in all our
> "progress", can't keep up with the effects of an apparent efficacy, through
> lucky metaphors/isomorphisms perhaps, of our prohibition style separation of
> theology and science.
>
> The Pharaoh is now for example say: US law. Such monsters of ornate rules
> and codes benefit whom? Right, it's ideal for PR exploiting Pharaohs that
> can afford the army of slave lawyers to look after their pyramids on
> Nantucket or wherever.
>
> I don't think we've ended imperialistic and massive slave-like treatment of
> people, based on dominance theologies. We've just given them different
> labels, and since the law is "atheistic" (just swear on the Bible for a
> moment), its great to mask that we haven't changed in this regard much.
>
> We're also more vulnerable to PR manipulation, negating importance of
> theology in science. Believing all kinds of crap because of a few idiots
> being handed the mike or air time. See climate change.

PGC: good stuff!

>>
>>
>>
>> so that we can leave a grumpy comment on Youtube, while we're taking a
>> sh*t".
>>
>> Sure, it's comedy.
>>
>> But it's not trivial in proclaiming "civilization" has not made the
>> progress promised by "Science, liberalized from theology". I guess people
>> think less about such problems as good and evil, fundamental science,
>> philosophy, theology etc. and we may be materially richer for it, and
>> technologically stronger, but perhaps ethically poorer and more naive about
>> the limits our ignorance imposes, without which we will tend to use
>> technology for savage and low stuff, simply because we lose the capacity to
>> envision more appropriate beliefs in such complex contexts.
>>
>> Eliminate/negate belief, and pair just half of science (the how-techne
>> bit, fundamentally laying aside "what" with belief implication) with what's
>> left, our default opportunism, and Louis' joke is no surprise. It's also no
>> surprise why many argue this way: it's simpler and clearer.
>>
>> Doesn't make it valid. I think we may be half blind in this sense.
>> Children with access to the weapons shed. The ignoramus Greeks were onto
>> this. PGC
>>
>>
>> The Greeks also kept slaves, considered women inferior, and gave us the
>> Spartans and Alexander the Great as well as Plato.
>
>
> Nobody here is making the claim that the Greeks were saints or have answers
> for us. But they did art

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>> So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
>> don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: "Wow, I can't believe we
>> built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them
>> until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't
>> give a sh*t how to get there..." Science that advances by eliminativism
>> comes with a price and some side-effects.
>>
>>
>> Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it.  We
>> eliminated the Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we
>> don't get pyramids anymore - and I'd call it progress.
>>
>>
>  Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: "Wow, look at
> all this amazing customized digital technology we have", waving around an
> iphone, "that's because where they build these things, people are so
> miserable they have to deploy nets outside the factories to keep them from
> jumping off the effin roofs...
>
>
> There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area.  Given
> the numbers I don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere.
> Universities in the U.S. also have high suicide rate.
>
> *"At Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., there have been six confirmed
> suicides this academic year, including two on successive days last month.
> Last week, Cornell installed chain-link fencing along many of the bridges
> that cross the gorges on campus, serving both as deterrent and a physical
> reminder.*
>
> *According to a 2009 article in Professional Psychology, 6 percent of
> participating undergraduates and 4 percent of graduate students in
> four-year colleges said they had "seriously considered attempting suicide"
> in the past year--and nearly half of each group did not tell anyone.**"*
>

Agreed and you make my point.

The possible maturing from a critical naiveté, in terms of implications of
beliefs, their negation, naturalization through sustaining
self-legitimizing histories as falsely true (e.g. through creation and
unquestioning beliefs in institutional function, which includes exploiting
factory floors, forcing obedience in conventions through education systems,
reliance on fossil fuels, overemphasis on weapons manufacture etc.), that
result in all our "progress", can't keep up with the effects of an apparent
efficacy, through lucky metaphors/isomorphisms perhaps, of our prohibition
style separation of theology and science.

The Pharaoh is now for example say: US law. Such monsters of ornate rules
and codes benefit whom? Right, it's ideal for PR exploiting Pharaohs that
can afford the army of slave lawyers to look after their pyramids on
Nantucket or wherever.

I don't think we've ended imperialistic and massive slave-like treatment of
people, based on dominance theologies. We've just given them different
labels, and since the law is "atheistic" (just swear on the Bible for a
moment), its great to mask that we haven't changed in this regard much.

We're also more vulnerable to PR manipulation, negating importance of
theology in science. Believing all kinds of crap because of a few idiots
being handed the mike or air time. See climate change.

>
>
>   so that we can leave a grumpy comment on Youtube, while we're taking a
> sh*t".
>
>  Sure, it's comedy.
>
> But it's not trivial in proclaiming "civilization" has not made the
> progress promised by "Science, liberalized from theology". I guess people
> think less about such problems as good and evil, fundamental science,
> philosophy, theology etc. and we may be materially richer for it, and
> technologically stronger, but perhaps ethically poorer and more naive about
> the limits our ignorance imposes, without which we will tend to use
> technology for savage and low stuff, simply because we lose the capacity to
> envision more appropriate beliefs in such complex contexts.
>
> Eliminate/negate belief, and pair just half of science (the how-techne
> bit, fundamentally laying aside "what" with belief implication) with what's
> left, our default opportunism, and Louis' joke is no surprise. It's also no
> surprise why many argue this way: it's simpler and clearer.
>
> Doesn't make it valid. I think we may be half blind in this sense.
> Children with access to the weapons shed. The ignoramus Greeks were onto
> this. PGC
>
>
> The Greeks also kept slaves, considered women inferior, and gave us the
> Spartans and Alexander the Great as well as Plato.
>

Nobody here is making the claim that the Greeks were saints or have answers
for us. But they did articulate the problem with the problem and question
of knowledge's limits. Plato, Plotinus to Gödel and co. have even made some
progress. PGC

>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are sub

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Liz,

No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the 
difference.

My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven 
Hubble expansion of space around galaxies.

The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble expansion. 
It seems to be as if moving masses left their gravitational field behind 
them as they entered BHs. There is no known case in which moving masses 
leave their gravitational fields behind them. That seems to me to 
contradict GR.

Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still 
causes gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he 
believes.

Mass is one of the few things BHs DO have

Edgar



On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:25:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>>  I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect 
>> outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and 
>> nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole? 
>>
>>  Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears 
>> completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and 
>> that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping 
>> from the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a 
>> pretty crazy idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space 
>> warping behind in any other circumstances.* 
>>  
>> I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy would 
> leave behind a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone 
> somewhere else.
>
> Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused 
>> it. At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is 
>> why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other 
>> all the time.
>> Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original 
>> galactic mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can 
>> go anywhere it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter 
>> can...
>>
>
>
>

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:19, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that  
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From  
that, one cannot deduce that he thought you can believe in a non- 
personal God (or god, if you prefer).


That is right.

But the premise is false. Einstein did not only said that he does  
not believe in a personal God. Clark was quoting partially Einstein,  
out of the context. Einstein said also that he believes in God.


Sorry, I just couldn't resist teasing a bit. (Also, I hadn't seen  
Brent's comment when I wrote that.)


No problem with teasing, but careful in applying logic.

The misuse of logic has probably killed more people on this planet  
than anything else.


Bruno






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

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


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>  But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
>>> rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing
>>> purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for
>>> the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and
>>> is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle
>>> "God"?
>>>
>>
>
>> I consider this question equivalent to asking "If there is no elan vital
>> found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms
>> life?" Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in
>> higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind
>> of "ancestor worship" (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a
>> common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many
>> religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top
>> of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to
>> conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and
>> our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out
>> the word "life" when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain
>> ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not "omnipotent", or
>> not "conscious", should we abandon that word and come up with something
>> else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some
>> thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an
>> incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew
>> words each time we learned something new.
>>
>>Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems
> ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage?
>
>
>  Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite,
> transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality? Or
> for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun?
>
>
> Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would nominate the
> strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer,
> why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite,
> transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable.
>

Those are the properties of the "god" of computationalism: arithmetical
truth


>   If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you,
> let's just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not
> necessarily a goar.
>

There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an
explaination of.


> I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation:
> physics->biology->intelligence->consciousness->observation->language->mathematics->physics->...
>
>
That is interesting, but it's not a complete cycle, for the physics or math
conceived of by intelligence is not necessarily the true or complete math
or physics.


>
>
>  We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I would
> say the opposite is the case: their existance is a consequence of many
> theories, including most of the everything type theories popular on this
> list.
>
>Hence we *could *say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to
> call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a
> discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but
> space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you can
> think of a few similar examples.
>
>
>  Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as the
> "Abrahamic God" and the "comp God" are two explanations (theories) of that
> which is responsible for our existance.
>
>  Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be
> explained persists.
>
>
>
>  I think "God" has enough baggage that the answer to John's question
> should be "no". Although given the unconscious reification of various
> things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral
> term for "the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe".
>
>
>  Any suggestions?
>
>(Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could
> try "Tao" ... or maybe "Ylem" ?)
>
>
>  I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I think
> "god" is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any particular
> religion.
>
>
> But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.
>

Not generally. That is the case only in some specific religions.

Jason

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as  
their precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To  
stuck a concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I  
know only atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution  
definition. Atheists are the best ally of the religious  
fundamentalists. Both prevents the rise of the scientific attitude  
in the field. Both promote the same ridiculous notion of God, and  
both promote the absence of doubt about Matter and Nature. It *is*  
pseudo-science and pseudo-religion.


"fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the  
weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard  
struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against the  
traditional 'opium of the people'--cannot bear the music of the  
spheres"


 -- Albert Einstein


Ah! Good to compensate Clark's partial quoting.

Bruno





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

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


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:13, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein  
quotes floating around the web.


They were real, but taken out of the context.

But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of  
confessional religion. Like Gödel.


Didn't Godel update the "ontological argument for the existence of  
God" ? I suppose that doesn't say anything about what God is (guy  
with a long beard, or chthulhu, or white light...)


Gödel has formalized St-Anselmus  notion of God in ... The Leinizian  
modal logic. Then he proved his existence.


He did this just to illustrate that rigor can exist in Theology.

I am not sure he really believed in St-Anselmus notion of God, and I  
doubt he really took Leibniz modal logic as the only correct  
metaphysical account of the alethic (Leibnizian) modal logic.


Open problem: does the inner god of the machine believes in St- 
Anselmus-Gödel God? (= can we translate the proof of God existence  
into S4Grz?).


More on Leibniz modal logic soon.


Bruno






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

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


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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


Oops send a message by mistake, sorry. Comment below.
On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR  wrote:


On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch  wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't  
rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all  
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown  
principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not  
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you  
think it adds to clarity to call that principle "God"?


I consider this question equivalent to asking "If there is no elan  
vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call  
those organisms life?" Asking this question illustrates the  
attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which  
to me seems little different from a kind of "ancestor  
worship" (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a  
common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across  
many religions, though each religion also adds various additional  
things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If  
our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these  
attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update  
accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word "life" when we  
discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly,  
even if we were to determine God is not "omnipotent", or not  
"conscious", should we abandon that word and come up with  
something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew  
fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text  
would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress  
forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new.


Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems  
ridiculous to drag a word and its  associated  
baggage?


Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite,  
transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality?  
Or for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun?


Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would nominate  
the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal  
dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite,  
transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable.  If you're  
not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's  
just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not  
necessarily a goar.  I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation:  
physics->biology->intelligence->consciousness->observation->language- 
>mathematics->physics->...


That is poetry. But even such a circle is easy to explain in  
arithmetic, which we have to assume already for defining those terms.  
So why not adopt the simplest explanation, if only to discover its  
limit one day.








We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I  
would say the opposite is the case: their existance is a  
consequence of many theories, including most of the everything type  
theories popular on this list.


Hence we could say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to  
call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a  
discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but  
space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure  
you can think of a few similar examples.


Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as  
the "Abrahamic God" and the "comp God" are two explanations  
(theories) of that which is responsible for our existance.


Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be  
explained persists.





I think "God" has enough baggage that the answer to John's  
question should be "no". Although given the unconscious  
reification of various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might  
still want a relatively neutral term for "the (possibly  
unknowable) principle behind the universe".


Any suggestions?

(Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we  
could try "Tao" ... or maybe "Ylem" ?)


I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I  
think "god" is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any  
particular religion.


But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.


Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise  
of monotheism and the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique  
reality. That is the motor of the fundamental inquiry. It has given  
the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned to politics.


Bruno




Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis