Re: A previous subject on environmentalism that echoes JC's view

[John Clark]

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) it's bad enough but environmentalists have gone
Bananas (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone).
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

7vo


On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 9:39 PM  wrote:

> https://twitter.com/Yrouel86/status/1664306350577397760
>
> This is Twitter. Author: Masssimo
> Atheist, allergic to BS and lover of science and technology. Interested in
> retrocomputing and electronics I also like to watch animes and tv series
> PisaJoined February 2015
> 498 Following 
> 544 Followers 
> Followed by Peter Hague PhD
> 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1DYA4smKaJKm4-8E6TEDwdQFogavkeaJTsVe99FMGStg%40mail.gmail.com.

A previous subject on environmentalism that echoes JC's view

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

https://twitter.com/Yrouel86/status/1664306350577397760

This is Twitter. Author: MasssimoAtheist, allergic to BS and lover of science 
and technology. Interested in retrocomputing and electronics I also like to 
watch animes and tv seriesPisaJoined February 2015498 Following544 
FollowersFollowed by Peter Hague PhD

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/35230471.2036191.1685669964565%40mail.yahoo.com.

[no subject]

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Why Many Researchers Now See the Brain as a Quantum System | Mind Matters
The battle between physicist, Max Tegmark, and physicist Penrose and 
anesthesiologist, Hameroff is recalled, before their truce of 20 years ago. The 
difference was in semantics. For the brain's microtubules, Penrose and Hameroff 
used the phrase quantum computing. Tegmark, took umbrage with the term quantum 
computing because qc is done at sub-sub-zero temps, using liquid helium & 
liquid nitrogen. What the boys should have written, was quantum field 
effect/theory, which by nature occurs everywhere, including the warm and 
delicious environment of our brains. I mean QFE/T  is everywhere. You, me, that 
piece of bird shit on the sidewalk on a spring day. Note I inserted the 
"effect" because its on-going, and am happy to have LC or anyone else, perform 
the needed correction, np. 




https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1999223924.3898502.1673194725539%40mail.yahoo.com.

[no subject]

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
  Resurrection 2022   Philip Benjamin
Finale for faith fulfillment's finishing facet
Imminent indeed is invigorating investiture
Risen Redeemer reassures ready regeneration
Spirit-soul, soma sintered solidly, sealed secure
Transcendent Truth transforming temporality
Damned dense dirt didn't detain the Dayspring
Atonement assures awakening and abode aloft
Yearn yea yawn, yet Yahweh yoke yields yeoman
Philip Benjamin
  [Michelle Goldberg] NY Times 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/opinion/religious-right-america.html By 
Michelle Goldberg Opinion Columnist July 9, 2021
 "In 2020, as in every year since 2013, the largest religious group in the 
United States was the religiously unaffiliated... "
   Journalist Goldberg does not know or cannot acknowledge that for the first 
time in the annals of history, a Constitutional Republic was established in the 
New World out of "98.8% Protestants (mostly Puritans), 1% Roman Catholics and 
0.2% Jews", thanks to the "Two Great Awakenings", whom the Koran would call 
"people of the Book".  Dictator Marxist pagan Joseph Stalin who coined the 
phrase ("American Exceptionalism") also could not recognize that fact, either.
   The First Great Awakening (1703-17) was led by the Philosopher Jonathan 
Edwards, the founder of Princeton University. Yale's president Timothy Dwight 
started a campus revival and is recognized as initiating the Second Great 
Awakening (1816). African American "Harry Hosier" (1784) delivers his sermon to 
a Caucasian congregation, The first African American Denomination church was 
formed In 1801-1802, by the Great Awakening. 
https://secondgreatawakeninghistory173.weebly.com/timeline.html .  What would 
the WAMP (defined below) have preferred as founding generation? 98.8% Atheists? 
Humanists? Alternate life styles? "The Nones"? The Anarchists? (No 
Marxist-Socialist-Fascist pagans existed in those days). The word 
"Fundamentalism" was respectable then, until the WAMP started their ill 
informed and biased ridicule. It was substituted by the word "Evangelicalism" 
which is now under siege by journalist Goldberg and her ilk. There is nothing 
new about this word which has Patriarchal, Prophetic and Apostolic imprimatur, 
beginning with Genesis 3:15.  This "protoevangelium" is expounded in Romans 
chapter 5 by Rabbi Saul of Tarsus. Augustine, Aquinas, Augustinian monk Martin 
Luther, John Newton, William Wilberforce (British MP), Isaac Newton, Michel 
Faraday, Thomas Young, etc. etc. all products of that "awakening".
Philip Benjamin
(Nonconformist to Global Marxist paganism)
general_the...@googlegroups.com<mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com> Cc: 
Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: An Ululation. Who Stole the Sabbath? WHAMP-the-Ingrate
   An Ululation on Stolen Sabbath, Sabbatical
Philip Benjamin 2-22-22.
Show, say: Sabbath, Sabbatical, surely sola Scriptura sources
Although acculturated; astoundingly authoritative assertions
But blatantly bastardized by bias-bastions, brutish billionaires
By bumptious books, bragging brats, boring befuddled brains
Avidly acknowledged and ascertained as astrometric anomalies
Terrestrially tacit, taken to tattered tactless transmundane towers
Philip Benjamin
 Note: Transmundane towers = Ivory towers

Woke/Cancel Culture? Will The WAMP Cancel Stolen Sabbath?
Bio dark-matter chemistry = Chemical bonds = Spin governed particle 
configurations of duet and octet.
AC = Awakened or Augustinian Consciousness by instrumentality of the Scriptures 
(Patriarchal, Prophetic, Apostolic).
UC = Un-awakened or Un-Augustinian Consciousness, governed by natural 
inclinations. 
https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwestaugustinians.org%2Fconversion-of-st-augustine=04%7C01%7C%7C857cc88d62854e71f57908d9f2fb7b01%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637807984180765278%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=kJXOiaOcByod7vaCCpdCwDVTruqYv0A%2F4OlXhRyNzcg%3D=0>
WAMP-the-Ingrate = Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism), including Hollywood, the 
stealing beneficiary
[Philip Benjamin]
~~~
Is the West Becoming Pagan Again?
https://www.wonderslist.com/it-is-patriotic-to-be-pagan-in-america/
Paganism in 21st-century Europe - what's the attraction?
Paganism is well established in a number of European countries including 
Sweden, the Netherlands and Britain, where the Home Office recognised it as a 
bona fide religion in 1971; one of the practical implications of that official 
recognition is that prisoners can ask to be visited by Pagan chaplains. As well 
as having a website, the British Pagan 

[no subject]

[Terren Suydam]

Question for you Bruno:.

You say (with help from Theaetetus) that 1p experience is given by Bp  p.
Yet, our experience is often deluded, as in optical illusions, or in
various kinds of emotional  psychological denial. Can we ever really say
that our knowledge, even 1p experience, refers to anything True?

Terren

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

[no subject]

[Alberto G. Corona]

Is it a coincidence that:

-During the cold war the image of the universe and the theory that
explained it was an inmense nuclear explosion?

-In the world  dominated by the multicultural ideology and computers,
it is a multiverse and/or a computer simulation the preferred
paradigm?

That is not fortuitous for me.  That is what I was trying to say with
the canal effect post time ago.

For me the deepest question is not what is true about the ultimate
reality. That is a question that never ever can be answered without
faith.  Thus, that question it is not scientific even in the broadest
meaning that scientific inquiry might be considered. The deepest
question that puzzles me the most is  the psychology of men across
ages asking themselves about the ultimate reality from which religion
of any kind derives, including the modern secularist ideologies.

And for the psychology of men shaped by natural selection can not and
will never be separated from a form of expected _good_ for him and/or
for their society.  That good can derive from many sources that are of
two kinds: either the good for himself or alternatively, the good for
the society as a whole, with a middle, that promote the good
exclusively for the initiated ones of a reduced group .

The goods of the first kind are whatever idea that increase self
power, self worship. The second group correspond with what promotes
predictive power over the environment   and in general, self
confidence in the community, as well as good moral rules.

Whathever ultimate explanation  is ever created by the Mytopoetic
faculty of the mind, that was shaped by natural selection that faculty
match truth and good (and how believable can be by others) That is my
hypothesis.

That faculty construct and/or accept a myth about oneself, their
society and the nature of the ultimate reality. It does not matter if
the mythic speculation depart from an scientific or properly mythic
inquiry. Because the last step in the nature of ultimate reality need
a leap on faith. This leap is produced by the mytopoetic, unconscious
element that match Truth and Good.

On creating myths about oneself, the mythopoesis produces whatever
that favours oneself that is at the same time credible by others. That
is corroborated by scientists. The same happens with the mythos
produced for the own society and for the nature of the reality (in
which he and his society must have a teleological mission to be
coherent).

Whatever of the possible goods for oneself or the society is more
considered in the mythic elaboration depend on each one´s aims and
personality, and the zeitgeist of the age. The good for oneself can be
a great evil for the rest. But first your mythos must be believed by
others, to be believable by others, the result of the mytopoesis
should be fashionable.

You can not talk about daemons in the internet age. but you can make
believable your mytopoesis talking about science energies and
ovnis instead of religion spirits and miracles respectively. So you
can have your seat in the university or a chord of young women  after
you, the privileged messenger of the creator aliens.

Should each one consider the nature of the goodness of their myths
that you, no doubt, have.


-- 
Alberto.

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

That hateful subject, metaphysics

[Roger Clough]

That hateful subject, metaphysics

To deal with consciousness and experiences,
which are mental, not physical, you have to go
to that hateful subject, metaphysics, and
only Leibniz has a good account of the perceiver,
which is the experiencer not available to materialism.

If you still believe there is a perceiver in materialism,
could you tell us where it is ? It has to be at one place,
as your experience and mine says that there
is only one perceiver.


Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

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

[LizR]

I wanna get metaphysicsal.


On 12 December 2013 00:37, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  That hateful subject, metaphysics

 To deal with consciousness and experiences,
 which are mental, not physical, you have to go
 to that hateful subject, metaphysics, and
 only Leibniz has a good account of the perceiver,
 which is the experiencer not available to materialism.

 If you still believe there is a perceiver in materialism,
 could you tell us where it is ? It has to be at one place,
 as your experience and mine says that there
 is only one perceiver.


 Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
 See my Leibniz site at
 http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough



 --
 http://www.avast.com/

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! 
 Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active.

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

[no subject]

[Roger Clough]

Leibniz and Piccinini versus Jerry Fodor - Is there a language of thought ?

1. Jerry Fodor argues that thoughts have representations, 
namely that there is a language of thought:

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

In which, as I understand it, computations 
are made by the brain presumably semantically 
using this language in some analogy to a Turing machine.

2. There is an alternate theory of thinking by Gualteiro Piccinini: 

http://philpapers.org/rec/PICCWR

as well as Leibniz, which seems to me to be essentially pragmatic 
or or perhaps mechanical, not semantic, so not disimilar to Leibniz's theory of 
perceptions and the following of the pre-established order.

Leibniz's theory as well as this theory can seemingly'be used by any
biological entity, and in Leibniz's case at least, by non-biological
(in the conventional sense) entities.

Both of these seem to follow these steps:

a) the brain perceives a sensory and 

b) by some mechanism knows what it perceives 
(forming a representation, a word that Piccinini rejects)

c) which causes it pragmatically to act in an instinctual.
 learned or otherwise prescribed fashion.

Here semantics are replaced by functional (pragmatic)
mechanisms. In Leibniz these steps are carried out by 
the One which in a) converts a sensory into signal 
into a perception and in b) and c) carries out a 
prescribed action which biologists might call an instinct
and which Leibniz calls a pre-established harmony.





Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi spudboy,

Oops I miss this post, sorry.

On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp.
Others are there, but out there is not out there.


Consider that you are dreaming. In the dream you see the sea, and the  
sky, and some clouds, and you think that those things are out there.  
But there is a clear sense that they are not out there OK? When you  
wake up, you realize it was, in some sense, all in your head.


With comp, this is generalized in some way. There is only the true  
arithmetical propositions, like the machine i output j to the machine  
k after n steps of the machine g, for example.


By the FPI, the consciousness flux differentiates on all arithmetical  
realization supporting your current life scenario, and apparently some  
of those dreams can be shared by collection of machines. But despite  
this, what truly is, is just the number theoretical truth. We can't  
see that because we are dreamed by them, and like in the dream above,  
we see many things outside us, but that notion of outside us is part  
of the dream.


It is like in Matrix, except that there is a superposition (by the  
FPI) of infinitely many matrices, and they interfere below our  
substitution level.


I hope this can help, I am currently explaining the math on the FOAR  
list, in case you are interested.


Bruno







Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am
Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about  
consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. =  
subject + object



On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he  
does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to  
whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try  
to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our  
descendants, just that information is being written to the present.  
Which in itself is a mind bending concept.


Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann  
Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via  
temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This  
somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had  
defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me  
of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science  
fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have  
wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious,  
intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps  
external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and  
manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out  
there?


Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are  
related to the universal system running it.
But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so  
easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely  
many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in  
arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of  
computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call  
physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view  
from inside.
Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer,  
based on brain-mind identity thesis.  All physical brains, notably,  
are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of  
all computations.


I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum  
of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen.


Others are there, but out there is not out there.

Bruno






Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am
Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about  
consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. =  
subject + object


Hi JACK SARFATTI


Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world

Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then
there's no consciousness.  But if you include a subject, the  
consciousness

problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the
mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the
subject out of the picture.

Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind  
seriously,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve
the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem
if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and
subjectivity is not in your vocabulary.




Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


- Receiving the following content -
From:  JACK SARFATTI
Receiver:  Kim Burrafato

Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object

[spudboy100]

Much thanks, Dr. Marchal.

Mitch



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:30 am
Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? 
Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object


Hi spudboy,


Oops I miss this post, sorry.


On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. 

Others are there, but out there is not out there.




Consider that you are dreaming. In the dream you see the sea, and the sky, and 
some clouds, and you think that those things are out there. But there is a 
clear sense that they are not out there OK? When you wake up, you realize it 
was, in some sense, all in your head.


With comp, this is generalized in some way. There is only the true arithmetical 
propositions, like the machine i output j to the machine k after n steps of 
the machine g, for example. 


By the FPI, the consciousness flux differentiates on all arithmetical 
realization supporting your current life scenario, and apparently some of those 
dreams can be shared by collection of machines. But despite this, what truly 
is, is just the number theoretical truth. We can't see that because we are 
dreamed by them, and like in the dream above, we see many things outside us, 
but that notion of outside us is part of the dream. 


It is like in Matrix, except that there is a superposition (by the FPI) of 
infinitely many matrices, and they interfere below our substitution level.


I hope this can help, I am currently explaining the math on the FOAR list, in 
case you are interested.


Bruno













Bruno




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am
Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? 
Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object




On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the 
Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or 
future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't 
claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to 
the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. 
 
Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The 
physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature 
differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created 
observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the 
past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and 
because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind 
works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, 
mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps 
external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a 
Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? 



Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to 
the universal system running it. 
But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet 
standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain 
and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite 
initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call 
physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from 
inside. 
Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on 
brain-mind identity thesis.  All physical brains, notably, are the result of 
the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations.


I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant 
according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen.


Others are there, but out there is not out there.


Bruno








 
Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am
Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because 
you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object


Hi JACK SARFATTI  

onsciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world
Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then 
here's no consciousness.  But if you include a subject, the consciousness
roblem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the
mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the
ubject out of the picture.
Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve
he mind/body problem. It's only the hard

Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he  
does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to  
whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to  
influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our  
descendants, just that information is being written to the present.  
Which in itself is a mind bending concept.


Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains.  
The physics described forced the creation of observers via  
temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This  
somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had  
defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me  
of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science  
fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have  
wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious,  
intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps  
external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests  
now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there?


Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are  
related to the universal system running it.
But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so  
easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many  
Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic,  
together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are  
distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to  
emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside.
Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer,  
based on brain-mind identity thesis.  All physical brains, notably,  
are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all  
computations.


I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of  
variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen.


Others are there, but out there is not out there.

Bruno






Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am
Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about  
consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. =  
subject + object


Hi JACK SARFATTI


Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world

Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then
there's no consciousness.  But if you include a subject, the  
consciousness

problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the
mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the
subject out of the picture.

Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind  
seriously,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve
the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem
if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and
subjectivity is not in your vocabulary.




Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


- Receiving the following content -
From:  JACK SARFATTI
Receiver:  Kim Burrafato
Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54
Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication




In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of
non-inertial observers
and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I  
introduce

relativistic
quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and
transformations of
mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I  
introduce

information
theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic
information
measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and  
quantum

information. I
review the field of relativistic quantum information. We  
investigate the

communication
abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer  
hovering above a

Schwarzschild
black hole, using the Rindler approximation.



Begin forwarded message:

 From: Kim Burrafato
 Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication
 Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT
 To: Jack Sarfatti

 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups

Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email

to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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

Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object

[spudboy100]

That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. 

Others are there, but out there is not out there.


Bruno




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am
Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? 
Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object




On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


 
I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the 
Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or 
future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't 
claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to 
the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. 
 
 
 
Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The 
physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature 
differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created 
observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the 
past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and 
because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind 
works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, 
mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps 
external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a 
Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? 



Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to 
the universal system running it. 
But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet 
standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain 
and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite 
initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call 
physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from 
inside. 
Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on 
brain-mind identity thesis.  All physical brains, notably, are the result of 
the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations.


I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant 
according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen.


Others are there, but out there is not out there.


Bruno








 
 
 
Mitch
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
 To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com
 Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am
 Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? 
Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
 
 
 
Hi JACK SARFATTI  


Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world

Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then 
there's no consciousness.  But if you include a subject, the consciousness
problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the
mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the
subject out of the picture.

Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve
the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem
if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and
subjectivity is not in your vocabulary.


  
 
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


- Receiving the following content -  
From:  JACK SARFATTI  
Receiver:  Kim Burrafato  
Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 
Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication 




In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of 
non-inertial observers 
and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce 
relativistic 
quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and 
transformations of 
mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce 
information 
theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic 
information 
measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum 
information. I 
review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the 
communication 
abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a 
Schwarzschild 
black hole, using the Rindler approximation. 
 
 
 
Begin forwarded message: 
 
 From: Kim Burrafato  
 Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication 
 Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT 
 To: Jack Sarfatti  
  
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 
  
  
 


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

Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object

[Roger Clough]

Hi JACK SARFATTI  


Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world

Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then 
there's no consciousness.  But if you include a subject, the consciousness
problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the
mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the
subject out of the picture.

Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve
the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem
if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and
subjectivity is not in your vocabulary.


  
 
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


- Receiving the following content -  
From:  JACK SARFATTI  
Receiver:  Kim Burrafato  
Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 
Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication 




In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of 
non-inertial observers 
and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce 
relativistic 
quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and 
transformations of 
mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce 
information 
theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic 
information 
measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum 
information. I 
review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the 
communication 
abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a 
Schwarzschild 
black hole, using the Rindler approximation. 
 
 
 
Begin forwarded message: 
 
 From: Kim Burrafato  
 Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication 
 Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT 
 To: Jack Sarfatti  
  
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 
  
  
 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object

[spudboy100]

I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the 
Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or 
future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't 
claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to 
the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. 

Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The 
physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature 
differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created 
observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the 
past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and 
because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind 
works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, 
mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps 
external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a 
Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? 

Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am
Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because 
you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object


Hi JACK SARFATTI  


Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world

Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then 
there's no consciousness.  But if you include a subject, the consciousness
problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the
mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the
subject out of the picture.

Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve
the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem
if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and
subjectivity is not in your vocabulary.


  
 
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


- Receiving the following content -  
From:  JACK SARFATTI  
Receiver:  Kim Burrafato  
Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 
Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication 




In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of 
non-inertial observers 
and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce 
relativistic 
quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and 
transformations of 
mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce 
information 
theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic 
information 
measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum 
information. I 
review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the 
communication 
abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a 
Schwarzschild 
black hole, using the Rindler approximation. 
 
 
 
Begin forwarded message: 
 
 From: Kim Burrafato  
 Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication 
 Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT 
 To: Jack Sarfatti  
  
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 
  
  
 


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

[no subject]

[b s]

Hi, is this  the admin for everything list?

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

[no subject]

[b s]

Nature decrees that man must seek out and find, and gather up all that is
good in the world... all that is good about the world... all the good
moments and stories and people and events and ideas and creations of the
world... and keep them in sight and promote them throughout the realms of
time and space... wherever and whenever possible... thus becoming a force
for good in the world's becoming.. in the great poetry of its revolutionary
motions and ceaseless striving after a higher ideal of itself.

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

[no subject]

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes 

Thanks. But can such biomolecular structures 
develop into a living cell ?


Sheldrake's morphisms all pertain to living entities.

Monads do also, except that for Leibniz, the whole
universe is alive.
 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/5/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-04, 16:57:26
Subject: Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe


Hi Roger,



On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes

All I can find on the web is that DNA only contains instructions to make
various biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, etc.


That's enough. Proteins fold into complex 3D structures with very specific 
chemical affinities. They are capable of self-assembling into specific 
macro-structures. Here's a simulation:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-dAvbl330



There's a field of biology dedicated to this:


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


It only works
on the molecular scale; the morphic fields are needed for larger
macrostructrures.
?

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-04, 03:51:54
Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe


Hi Roger,



On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough ?rote:

?upert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe

What is space ? ?here is no such thing as space, there are only fields,
? ? which are mathematical structures.



Fine.
?

What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field.
? ? There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed
? ? as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs
? ? or field.



Ok.
?

What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA 
does not do that.



This I have a problem with. Biologists agree on no such thing and they do have 
very compelling explanations for how morphogenesis works. As an aside, I find 
that someone using some variation of the phrase all scientists agree is a 
very bad sign.


I believe this results from an outdates view of the DNA as an inert blueprint. 
We now know that DNA is a computer program, capable of conditional execution 
based on inputs from the environment. Biologists call these mechanisms gene 
regulatory networks:


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


The initial?ndifferentiated?ell divides a number of times, and the accumulation 
of cells and their interactions eventually changes the environment in a way 
that triggers the expression of other segments of the genetic code.
?

If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch

Rupert Sheldrake's ?The Morphogenetic Universe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen

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




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

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




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

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

it takes two to tango. awareness = subject + object

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb 

This is not rocket science.

To be aware you must have both subject and object:

awareness = subject + object

Neither materialism nor science can provide a subject, since a subject must be 
subjective.

So neither one will permit awareness. Start studying the mnonadology.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-22, 19:15:57
Subject: Re: intuition


On 8/22/2012 1:04 PM, John Mikes wrote: 
Brent Meeker wrote on list:
Intuition is when a seemingly true proposition pops into your head and you 
aren't aware of any preceding thought process leading to it.  According to 
(you?) computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is 
intuition.
Brent

Dear Brent,

to 'your' part: is an urge to find some solution one of your thought 
processes? 
In speculation you may not realize the train of thoughts leading to whatever is 
popping up as a solution. It may happen even WITHOUT the urgency I mentioned. 
Let us say: Just an 'idea' pops up - it may be called intuition. 
If you are ordered, you may assign it to problems that occupied your mind 
lately. 

To 'computers': whenever a computer produces a result it is algorithmically 
based on data IN the hardware/software (you may call it the 'awareness of the 
computer.) 


Simply because it is in the hardware/software doesn't mean the computer is 
aware of it, any more than the fact that a thought is formulated in your brain 
means you are aware of it.  It is the popping up that describes the thought's 
fully formed appearance in consciousness.  This requires a certain reflexive 
capability that we do not bother to include it in the software of most 
computers because they don't need it.  I think evolution has provided us this 
reflexive capability as a useful adjunct to language and learning.  It allows 
us to succinctly summarize inferences for their future application and to share 
our reasoning with others.  I think we could provide this kind of awareness to 
robots that need to learn and act autonomously and to also be able to explain 
their actions.  Someday we will probably build Martian rovers with such 
autonomy.  We don't need the rover to explain it's decisions in terms of the 
binary switching of its CPU, we only need a 'top level' explanation 
communicated to us or other rovers.  So we won't provide a trace of all the CPU 
states; only a summary that will appear in as the rovers 'intuition'.  Of 
course if the rovers intuition proves to be faulty and it often runs into a 
ditch; then we will want to have a deeper record and analysis - just as we want 
to study the brain chemistry and structure of those who go insane.

Brent


Proper semantics of new (developing?) territories is of paramount importance.  
You are usually VERY clear on such: would your AI agree to such definition, 
added:
a suiting ID for intuition as well? 
(I might have a hard time to identify intuition. The closest I may come up to 
NOW is: 
we may cut into peripheral 'shaving' into the limits of our knowledge (I call 
that creativity) and that may combine into existing questions as callable 
'intuition'). 
JohnM
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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

The categories of subject, object, physical, nonphysical, nonlocal

[Roger]

Hi William R. Buckley 

Hwere's how I see it:


1.  The object is the object of a subject, so is mostly a grammatical term.

2.  The subject is the observer or doer and so is grammatical term.

3 The object can be either physical (such as metter) where it has extension in 
space
or nonphysical (such as mind), where it is unextended (outside of 
spacetime).

4. Outside of spacetime means the entity has nonlocality. Hence telepathy, 
prayer, etc.
are possible in some situations (where one has clearer less undistorted 
mental vision or intelligence).

 

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: William R. Buckley 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-12, 12:01:38
Subject: RE: Why AI is impossible


Roger:

Nothing in the universe is objective.  Objectivity is an ideal.

When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the 
physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other 
part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure.

QED.

The physical universe is purely subjective.

wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger 
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:35 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Why AI is impossible

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi 

This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry.

Life is whatever can experience its surroundings,
nonlife cannot do so.  That's the difference.

Intelligence requires the ability to experience what it is selecting.
So only life can have intelligence.

Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective, 
only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.
Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,
because only living items can experience the world..


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/12/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Evgenii Rudnyi 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-11, 10:22:44
Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers in AI 
ordescribing life

On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
 On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
 The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
 life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.

 The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
 artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
 intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research
 is about AI.


 What does intelligence means in this context that life is
 unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
 Where there is more intelligence?

 Evgenii

 Dear Evgenii,

 A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
 question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better
 to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and
 then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.


My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is 
unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them 
with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

Evgenii

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

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

Re: One subject

[Pierz]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:31:31 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:

  On 6/12/2012 4:40 PM, Pierz wrote: 

 I didn't say that we would all turn into self-deniers concerned only to 
 help others. I said we would achieve an optimal moral society. Such a 
 society would always bear in mind the absolute equality of all subjects 
 (not in the 'royal subject' sense!), with each person knowing their actions 
 are received by none other than themselves. The best moral action would be 
 the selfish action, seen from the perspective of the entire self rather 
 than the fragmentary self. Imagine you share an island with a person for 
 one year, and you know that the next year, you will become the other person 
 on the island at the start of the same year again - ie, you will experience 
 everything from their perspective. How will it change the way you behave?


 So does this universal person include dogs? apes? spiders? rocks?

Well of course it must include all minds, which means dogs, apes and 
spiders. Rocks? Who knows? If rocks possess any sentience I very much doubt 
it has any moral bearing.
 


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2klVzkg5gI0J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: One subject

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Jun 2012, at 04:19, Pierz wrote:




On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46:42 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Jun 2012, at 03:12, Pierz wrote:

 I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI
 and eternal torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a
 new topic.
 It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality
 (3p) only one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible
 experiences. In a blog post I wrote a while back (before I learned
 about comp) I put forward this 'one observer' notion as the only
 solution to a paradox that occurred to me when thinking about the
 idea of cryogenic freezing and resuscitation. I started wondering
 how I could know whether the consciousness of the person being
 resuscitated was the 'same consciousness' (whatever that means) as
 the consciousness of the person who was frozen. That is, is a new
 subject created with all your memories (who will of course swear
 they are you), or is the new subject really you?
 This seems like a silly or meaningless point until you ask yourself
 the question, If I am frozen and then cryogenicaly resurrected
 should I be scared of bad experiences the resurrected person might
 have? Will they be happening to *me*, or to some person with my
 memories and personality I don't have to worry about? It becomes
 even clearer if you imagine dismantling and reassembling the brain
 atom by atom. What then provides the continuity between the pre-
 dismantled and the reassembled brain? It can only be the continuity
 of self-reference (the comp assumption) that makes 'me' me, since
 there is no physical continuity at all.
 But let's say the atoms are jumbled a little at reassembly,
 resulting in a slight personality change or the loss of some or all
 memories. Should I, about to undergo brain disassembly and
 reassembly, be worried about experiences of this person in the
 future who is now not quite me? What then if the reassembled brain
 is changed enough that I am no longer recognizable as me? Following
 this through to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that the
 division between subjects is not absolute. What separates
 subjectivities is the contents of consciousness (comp would say the
 computations being performed), not some kind of other mysterious
 'label' or identifier that marks certain experiences as belonging to
 one subject and not another (such as, for instance, being the owner
 of a specific physical brain).
 I find this conclusion irresistible - and frankly terrifying. It's
 like reincarnation expanded to the infinite degree, where 'I' must
 ultimately experience every subjective experience (or at least every
 manifested subjective experience, if I stop short of comp and the
 UD). What it does provide is a rationale for the Golden Rule of
 morality. Treat others as I would have them treat me because they
 *are* me, there is no other! If we really lived with the knowledge
 of this unity, if we grokked it deep down, surely it would change
 the way we relate to others. And if it were widely accepted as fact,
 wouldn't it lead to the optimal society, since
 everyone would know that they will be/are on the receiving end of
 every action they commit? Exploitation is impossible since you can
 only steal from yourself.

I can agree, but it is not clear if it is assertable (it might belong
to variant of G*, and not of G making that kind of moral proposition
true but capable of becoming false if justified  too much, like all
protagorean virtues (happiness, free-exam, intelligence, goodness,
etc.). Cf hell is paved with good intentions.

Also, a masochist might become a sadist by the same reasoning, which,
BTW, illustrates that the (comp) moral is not don't do to the others
what you don't want the others do to you, but don't do to the others
what *the others* don't want you do to them.
In fact, unless you defend your life,  just respect the possible adult
No Thanks.  (It is more complex with the children, you must add
nuances like as far as possible).


I don't know what G* and G are, but I get the gist, and I agree. In  
fact, questions like how to deal with punishment become interesting  
when considered through this 'one subject' lens. When 'I' am the  
offender, I don't want to be punished for my crimes, but 'I' as the  
victim and the broader community think the offender should be. We  
have to balance competing views. Also, there is sense in looking  
after oneself ahead of others to the extent that I of all people am  
best equipped to look after my own needs, and I have the same rights  
to happiness, material wellbeing etc as others. The question is,  
what course of action brings the greatest good if all adopt it as  
their moral code? It's no use everybody giving away all their  
worldly goods to charity - there will be no-one to receive them!



  Of course, if comp is true, moral action becomes meaningless in one
 sense since everything happens anyway, so you

Re: One subject

[Pierz]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:14:26 AM UTC+10, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 6/11/2012 10:19 PM, Pierz wrote:
  


 On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46:42 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


 On 11 Jun 2012, at 03:12, Pierz wrote: 

  I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI   
  and eternal torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a   
  new topic. 
  It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality   
  (3p) only one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible   
  experiences. In a blog post I wrote a while back (before I learned   
  about comp) I put forward this 'one observer' notion as the only   
  solution to a paradox that occurred to me when thinking about the   
  idea of cryogenic freezing and resuscitation. I started wondering   
  how I could know whether the consciousness of the person being   
  resuscitated was the 'same consciousness' (whatever that means) as   
  the consciousness of the person who was frozen. That is, is a new   
  subject created with all your memories (who will of course swear   
  they are you), or is the new subject really you? 
  This seems like a silly or meaningless point until you ask yourself   
  the question, If I am frozen and then cryogenicaly resurrected   
  should I be scared of bad experiences the resurrected person might   
  have? Will they be happening to *me*, or to some person with my   
  memories and personality I don't have to worry about? It becomes   
  even clearer if you imagine dismantling and reassembling the brain   
  atom by atom. What then provides the continuity between the pre- 
  dismantled and the reassembled brain? It can only be the continuity   
  of self-reference (the comp assumption) that makes 'me' me, since   
  there is no physical continuity at all. 
  But let's say the atoms are jumbled a little at reassembly,   
  resulting in a slight personality change or the loss of some or all   
  memories. Should I, about to undergo brain disassembly and   
  reassembly, be worried about experiences of this person in the   
  future who is now not quite me? What then if the reassembled brain   
  is changed enough that I am no longer recognizable as me? Following   
  this through to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that the   
  division between subjects is not absolute. What separates   
  subjectivities is the contents of consciousness (comp would say the   
  computations being performed), not some kind of other mysterious   
  'label' or identifier that marks certain experiences as belonging to   
  one subject and not another (such as, for instance, being the owner   
  of a specific physical brain). 
  I find this conclusion irresistible - and frankly terrifying. It's   
  like reincarnation expanded to the infinite degree, where 'I' must   
  ultimately experience every subjective experience (or at least every   
  manifested subjective experience, if I stop short of comp and the   
  UD). What it does provide is a rationale for the Golden Rule of   
  morality. Treat others as I would have them treat me because they   
  *are* me, there is no other! If we really lived with the knowledge   
  of this unity, if we grokked it deep down, surely it would change   
  the way we relate to others. And if it were widely accepted as fact,   
  wouldn't it lead to the optimal society, since 
  everyone would know that they will be/are on the receiving end of   
  every action they commit? Exploitation is impossible since you can   
  only steal from yourself. 

  
 Hi Pierz,

 A few comments. What is the process or relation that defines the I? 
 If there is one I, as you discuss here, would not that I have 
 experiences that are mutually contradictory? How would this not do damage 
 to the idea that a conscious experience is an integrated whole and thus 
 contains no contradiction?

 The idea of a single mind or observer does not imply that everything is 
happening at once in that mind - or rather, it does not imply that the I is 
aware of everything at once. That is patently not the case. It is hard to 
define in objective terms what is meant by the 'I', because the I is the 
process of subjectivity itself and so not amenable to objectification. But 
one way I have conceptualised it as follows. Our normal view posits the 
existence of multiple separate minds, each of which has extension in time 
(but, oddly, not space - we aren't talking about brains). Whereas the one 
mind view would see that all apparently separate minds are as it were 
different perspectives of and on the same single mind. An examination of 
the logical consequences of an extension of mind in time (the cryogenic 
paradox or the disassembly/reassembly thought experiment) shows that there 
can be no hidden identity to consciousness beyond the contents of that 
consciousness. No mutual contradiction occurs in the same way that the 
shape of the underside of an elephant does

Re: One subject

[Pierz]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:27:29 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 12 Jun 2012, at 04:19, Pierz wrote:



 On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46:42 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 11 Jun 2012, at 03:12, Pierz wrote: 

  I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI   
  and eternal torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a   
  new topic. 
  It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality   
  (3p) only one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible   
  experiences. In a blog post I wrote a while back (before I learned   
  about comp) I put forward this 'one observer' notion as the only   
  solution to a paradox that occurred to me when thinking about the   
  idea of cryogenic freezing and resuscitation. I started wondering   
  how I could know whether the consciousness of the person being   
  resuscitated was the 'same consciousness' (whatever that means) as   
  the consciousness of the person who was frozen. That is, is a new   
  subject created with all your memories (who will of course swear   
  they are you), or is the new subject really you? 
  This seems like a silly or meaningless point until you ask yourself   
  the question, If I am frozen and then cryogenicaly resurrected   
  should I be scared of bad experiences the resurrected person might   
  have? Will they be happening to *me*, or to some person with my   
  memories and personality I don't have to worry about? It becomes   
  even clearer if you imagine dismantling and reassembling the brain   
  atom by atom. What then provides the continuity between the pre- 
  dismantled and the reassembled brain? It can only be the continuity   
  of self-reference (the comp assumption) that makes 'me' me, since   
  there is no physical continuity at all. 
  But let's say the atoms are jumbled a little at reassembly,   
  resulting in a slight personality change or the loss of some or all   
  memories. Should I, about to undergo brain disassembly and   
  reassembly, be worried about experiences of this person in the   
  future who is now not quite me? What then if the reassembled brain   
  is changed enough that I am no longer recognizable as me? Following   
  this through to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that the   
  division between subjects is not absolute. What separates   
  subjectivities is the contents of consciousness (comp would say the   
  computations being performed), not some kind of other mysterious   
  'label' or identifier that marks certain experiences as belonging to   
  one subject and not another (such as, for instance, being the owner   
  of a specific physical brain). 
  I find this conclusion irresistible - and frankly terrifying. It's   
  like reincarnation expanded to the infinite degree, where 'I' must   
  ultimately experience every subjective experience (or at least every   
  manifested subjective experience, if I stop short of comp and the   
  UD). What it does provide is a rationale for the Golden Rule of   
  morality. Treat others as I would have them treat me because they   
  *are* me, there is no other! If we really lived with the knowledge   
  of this unity, if we grokked it deep down, surely it would change   
  the way we relate to others. And if it were widely accepted as fact,   
  wouldn't it lead to the optimal society, since 
  everyone would know that they will be/are on the receiving end of   
  every action they commit? Exploitation is impossible since you can   
  only steal from yourself. 

 I can agree, but it is not clear if it is assertable (it might belong   
 to variant of G*, and not of G making that kind of moral proposition   
 true but capable of becoming false if justified  too much, like all   
 protagorean virtues (happiness, free-exam, intelligence, goodness,   
 etc.). Cf hell is paved with good intentions. 

 Also, a masochist might become a sadist by the same reasoning, which,   
 BTW, illustrates that the (comp) moral is not don't do to the others   
 what you don't want the others do to you, but don't do to the others   
 what *the others* don't want you do to them. 
 In fact, unless you defend your life,  just respect the possible adult   
 No Thanks.  (It is more complex with the children, you must add   
 nuances like as far as possible). 


 I don't know what G* and G are, but I get the gist, and I agree. In fact, 
 questions like how to deal with punishment become interesting when 
 considered through this 'one subject' lens. When 'I' am the offender, I 
 don't want to be punished for my crimes, but 'I' as the victim and the 
 broader community think the offender should be. We have to balance 
 competing views. Also, there is sense in looking after oneself ahead of 
 others to the extent that I of all people am best equipped to look after my 
 own needs, and I have the same rights to happiness, material wellbeing etc 
 as others. The question is, what course

Re: One subject

[meekerdb]

On 6/12/2012 4:40 PM, Pierz wrote:
I didn't say that we would all turn into self-deniers concerned only to help others. I 
said we would achieve an optimal moral society. Such a society would always bear in mind 
the absolute equality of all subjects (not in the 'royal subject' sense!), with each 
person knowing their actions are received by none other than themselves. The best moral 
action would be the selfish action, seen from the perspective of the entire self rather 
than the fragmentary self. Imagine you share an island with a person for one year, and 
you know that the next year, you will become the other person on the island at the start 
of the same year again - ie, you will experience everything from their perspective. How 
will it change the way you behave?


So does this universal person include dogs? apes? spiders? rocks?

Brent

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

Re: One subject

[Pierz]

On Monday, June 11, 2012 12:20:06 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:

 On 6/10/2012 6:12 PM, Pierz wrote: 
  I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI and 
 eternal torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a new topic. 
  It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality 
 (3p) only one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible 
 experiences. In a blog post I wrote a while back (before I learned about 
 comp) I put forward this 'one observer' notion as the only solution to a 
 paradox that occurred to me when thinking about the idea of cryogenic 
 freezing and resuscitation. I started wondering how I could know whether 
 the consciousness of the person being resuscitated was the 'same 
 consciousness' (whatever that means) as the consciousness of the person who 
 was frozen. That is, is a new subject created with all your memories (who 
 will of course swear they are you), or is the new subject really you? 
  This seems like a silly or meaningless point until you ask yourself the 
 question, If I am frozen and then cryogenicaly resurrected should I be 
 scared of bad experiences the resurrected person might have? Will they be 
 happening to *me*, or to some person with my memories and personality I 
 don't have to worry about? It becomes even clearer if you imagine 
 dismantling and reassembling the brain atom by atom. What then provides the 
 continuity between the pre-dismantled and the reassembled brain? It can 
 only be the continuity of self-reference (the comp assumption) that makes 
 'me' me, since there is no physical continuity at all. 

 There's continuity of physical structure (I think that's what 
 'reassembled' means).  I 
 don't know what 'continuity of self-reference' means?  Anyway this is not 
 a thought 
 experiment.  The atoms in your body get replaced as you live, it is only 
 the structure 
 that is, approximately, conserved. 


Continuity of self reference = something like comp substitution level, i.e. 
I can recall a continuous self history which seems sufficiently coherent 
that I can identify a self. There is a continuity of physical structure, 
but one that is based on the pattern of relations not the physical atoms. 
So I could be duplicated, ending up with two selves. Now let's say one of 
these selves is tortured. Should I, prior to the duplication, fear this 
torture? Following the UDA, one 'diary' will record torture and the other 
won't. So do I have a 50% chance of being tortured? Should I fear it as if 
the matter were to be decided by a toin coss? I think not - this is not a 
normal type of probability. Both branches happen, and 'I' will experience 
both.

 But let's say the atoms are jumbled a little at reassembly, resulting in 
 a slight personality change or the loss of some or all memories. 

 Happens to me all the time. 

 Yes, and well the question is, at what point do you stop being you and 
become someone else? Of course that is pure semantics from the 3p 
perspective, but from the 1p POV, it is the difference between being the 
locus of an experience or not, as the torture example shows. Imagine the 
brain is duplicated a million times, but each duplication introduces 
varying degrees of change from the original brain structure. Some 
duplications are almost (or exactly) the original me, others are completely 
different people. Now how do I 'bet' on whether or not to be scared of the 
torture that will be imposed on some of those copies? Should I only fear 
torture that happens to exact copies, slight variants, or *all* the copies, 
regardless of how divergent from the original they are?

 Should I, about to undergo brain disassembly and reassembly, be worried 
 about experiences of this person in the future who is now not quite me? 
 What then if the reassembled brain is changed enough that I am no longer 
 recognizable as me? 

 Are you worried that you may experience a heart attack in 20yrs?  Are you 
 eating a 
 cheeseburger? 


Heart attack's the least of my worries, but I hope you appreciate I'm not 
personally considering cryogenic freezing. I'm talking about the paradoxes 
that the idea of singular identity presents.


  Following this through to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that 
 the division between subjects is not absolute. What separates 
 subjectivities is the contents of consciousness 

 That seems to me a tautology; just an implicit definition of 
 subjectivities? 


I don't think so. It arises as a necessary conclusion from contemplation of 
the foregoing scenarios and their variants. In comp, what maintains the 
continuity of the subject in the duplication experiment? The substitution 
level. The subject coheres through the teleportation/duplication because 
the structure of computations is retained  - in my thought experiment, the 
physical brain structure. My statement that the contents of consciousness 
provide the continuity and the separation of observers is similar

Re: One subject

[Pierz]

On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46:42 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 11 Jun 2012, at 03:12, Pierz wrote: 

  I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI   
  and eternal torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a   
  new topic. 
  It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality   
  (3p) only one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible   
  experiences. In a blog post I wrote a while back (before I learned   
  about comp) I put forward this 'one observer' notion as the only   
  solution to a paradox that occurred to me when thinking about the   
  idea of cryogenic freezing and resuscitation. I started wondering   
  how I could know whether the consciousness of the person being   
  resuscitated was the 'same consciousness' (whatever that means) as   
  the consciousness of the person who was frozen. That is, is a new   
  subject created with all your memories (who will of course swear   
  they are you), or is the new subject really you? 
  This seems like a silly or meaningless point until you ask yourself   
  the question, If I am frozen and then cryogenicaly resurrected   
  should I be scared of bad experiences the resurrected person might   
  have? Will they be happening to *me*, or to some person with my   
  memories and personality I don't have to worry about? It becomes   
  even clearer if you imagine dismantling and reassembling the brain   
  atom by atom. What then provides the continuity between the pre- 
  dismantled and the reassembled brain? It can only be the continuity   
  of self-reference (the comp assumption) that makes 'me' me, since   
  there is no physical continuity at all. 
  But let's say the atoms are jumbled a little at reassembly,   
  resulting in a slight personality change or the loss of some or all   
  memories. Should I, about to undergo brain disassembly and   
  reassembly, be worried about experiences of this person in the   
  future who is now not quite me? What then if the reassembled brain   
  is changed enough that I am no longer recognizable as me? Following   
  this through to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that the   
  division between subjects is not absolute. What separates   
  subjectivities is the contents of consciousness (comp would say the   
  computations being performed), not some kind of other mysterious   
  'label' or identifier that marks certain experiences as belonging to   
  one subject and not another (such as, for instance, being the owner   
  of a specific physical brain). 
  I find this conclusion irresistible - and frankly terrifying. It's   
  like reincarnation expanded to the infinite degree, where 'I' must   
  ultimately experience every subjective experience (or at least every   
  manifested subjective experience, if I stop short of comp and the   
  UD). What it does provide is a rationale for the Golden Rule of   
  morality. Treat others as I would have them treat me because they   
  *are* me, there is no other! If we really lived with the knowledge   
  of this unity, if we grokked it deep down, surely it would change   
  the way we relate to others. And if it were widely accepted as fact,   
  wouldn't it lead to the optimal society, since 
  everyone would know that they will be/are on the receiving end of   
  every action they commit? Exploitation is impossible since you can   
  only steal from yourself. 

 I can agree, but it is not clear if it is assertable (it might belong   
 to variant of G*, and not of G making that kind of moral proposition   
 true but capable of becoming false if justified  too much, like all   
 protagorean virtues (happiness, free-exam, intelligence, goodness,   
 etc.). Cf hell is paved with good intentions. 

 Also, a masochist might become a sadist by the same reasoning, which,   
 BTW, illustrates that the (comp) moral is not don't do to the others   
 what you don't want the others do to you, but don't do to the others   
 what *the others* don't want you do to them. 
 In fact, unless you defend your life,  just respect the possible adult   
 No Thanks.  (It is more complex with the children, you must add   
 nuances like as far as possible). 


 I don't know what G* and G are, but I get the gist, and I agree. In fact, 
questions like how to deal with punishment become interesting when 
considered through this 'one subject' lens. When 'I' am the offender, I 
don't want to be punished for my crimes, but 'I' as the victim and the 
broader community think the offender should be. We have to balance 
competing views. Also, there is sense in looking after oneself ahead of 
others to the extent that I of all people am best equipped to look after my 
own needs, and I have the same rights to happiness, material wellbeing etc 
as others. The question is, what course of action brings the greatest good 
if all adopt it as their moral code? It's no use everybody giving away all 
their worldly

One subject

[Pierz]

I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI and eternal 
torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a new topic. 
It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality (3p) only 
one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible experiences. In a 
blog post I wrote a while back (before I learned about comp) I put forward this 
'one observer' notion as the only solution to a paradox that occurred to me 
when thinking about the idea of cryogenic freezing and resuscitation. I started 
wondering how I could know whether the consciousness of the person being 
resuscitated was the 'same consciousness' (whatever that means) as the 
consciousness of the person who was frozen. That is, is a new subject created 
with all your memories (who will of course swear they are you), or is the new 
subject really you? 
This seems like a silly or meaningless point until you ask yourself the 
question, If I am frozen and then cryogenicaly resurrected should I be scared 
of bad experiences the resurrected person might have? Will they be happening 
to *me*, or to some person with my memories and personality I don't have to 
worry about? It becomes even clearer if you imagine dismantling and 
reassembling the brain atom by atom. What then provides the continuity between 
the pre-dismantled and the reassembled brain? It can only be the continuity of 
self-reference (the comp assumption) that makes 'me' me, since there is no 
physical continuity at all. 
But let's say the atoms are jumbled a little at reassembly, resulting in a 
slight personality change or the loss of some or all memories. Should I, about 
to undergo brain disassembly and reassembly, be worried about experiences of 
this person in the future who is now not quite me? What then if the reassembled 
brain is changed enough that I am no longer recognizable as me? Following this 
through to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that the division between 
subjects is not absolute. What separates subjectivities is the contents of 
consciousness (comp would say the computations being performed), not some kind 
of other mysterious 'label' or identifier that marks certain experiences as 
belonging to one subject and not another (such as, for instance, being the 
owner of a specific physical brain).
 I find this conclusion irresistible - and frankly terrifying. It's like 
reincarnation expanded to the infinite degree, where 'I' must ultimately 
experience every subjective experience (or at least every manifested subjective 
experience, if I stop short of comp and the UD). What it does provide is a 
rationale for the Golden Rule of morality. Treat others as I would have them 
treat me because they *are* me, there is no other! If we really lived with the 
knowledge of this unity, if we grokked it deep down, surely it would change the 
way we relate to others. And if it were widely accepted as fact, wouldn't it 
lead to the optimal society, since 
everyone would know that they will be/are on the receiving end of every action 
they commit? Exploitation is impossible since you can only steal from yourself. 
Of course, if comp is true, moral action becomes meaningless in one sense since 
everything happens anyway, so you will be on the receiving end of all actions, 
both good and bad.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ymVml8zv_kMJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[no subject]

[Joao Leao]

unsubscribe








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

[no subject]

[Lennart Nilsson]

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Fr=E5n: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F=F6r Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 20 februari 2008 15:21
Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=C4mne: Re: UDA paper


 It arises from the fact
 that my classical state is duplicable...


And of course your quantumstate is not...

So your argument that the duplication can be said to be on any level,
including a whole universe if need be, is not an airproof argument?

LN


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

No Subject

[Vikee1]

My name is Lloyd David Raub.  I'm a retired executive from Ohio State 
University.  I have a Ph.D. in Public Administration from Penn. State and my 
interests now include TOE's, alternate universes, MWI, inflationary  other 
cosmologies {cyclic universes, quasi steady state, plasma,etc.} I am looking 
forward to enjoying the discussions on this thread. thanks  HELLO EVERYBODY. 
 Dave Raub 

Unidentified subject!

[James Higgo]

Oh, I forgot to mention Julian Barbour's 'the end 
of time' - seehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195117298/qid=3D981890976/sr=3D1-=1/ref=3Dsc_b_1/103-1683623-4661404Vic 
Stenger's book is called, 'Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, =and 
Multiple Universes 'Now, George, you can't say I don't make time for 
you.James

Unidentified subject!

[Fritz Griffith]

It seems that most of the people on this mailing list have read a lot more 
about the topics of discussion thal I have.  Where can I read about such 
things as the Dovetail Argument, conciousness with comp, Church's thesis, 
etc.  There's a lot of stuff I don't understand, and I want to read up on 
it.
__
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com