Re: Good is that which enhances life

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on something. People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you understand what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is nonsense. But

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2012 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things - by your own standards - but which are not unethical because they have

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:32, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and

Re: Re: While computers are causal, life is not causal.

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark I would call that reacting. But you're welcome to call it causal. I believe that you should know all of the factors involved before calling something causal. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that

There is no such thing as cause and effect

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down. You can't turn off the gravity to falsify it, at least in that situation. And any one-time event isn't falsifiable. Death, for

Re: Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg It's OK as far as the left goes to hate the rich. To them, nothing the left does is ever wrong. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content

Re: Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
Roger, On the contrare, science is a product of the left, more or less, whereas anti-evolution is a product of the right, more or less. Science is selfcorrecting and so the left is constantly re-examining its conclusions whether in science or sociology. Whereas the right is unable to correct

Monodology 1

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg According to the Monadology, all monads are alive. Even rocks, which are nearly dead. Leibniz is indeed frustratingly difficult, but contrary to (some of ) your comments on the Monadology on the link below, I can't recall a single error. Just to take your criticism of

Personally I call the Platonic realm anything inextended. Anything outside of spacetime.

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg Personally I call the Platonic realm anything inextended. Time necessarily drops out if space drops out. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following

Re: Monodology 1

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
The monads of string theory each have many parts. To begin with they have 6 dimensions constrained by higher-order EM flux winding through 500 topological holes. They are definitely extended being 1000 Planck lengths in diameter and in an array throughout the universe at a density of about

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence or life itself. As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created, for that world is contingent and so contains some missing pieces, misfits, defects, all of that stuff. Crap happens. Roger Clough,

Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark Indeed the world contains much misery and injustice simply because it isn't Heaven. Leibniz said that without God, it could have been a lot worse. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could

Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
Bruno, In comp, what is the function of god. My hope is that the function of a god might be to reduce 3p tp 1p. Everything else seems to be capable of running according to algorithms. Is there anything in comp that is non-algorithmic? Richard On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Roger Clough

The indestructable Pareto distribution

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi R AM Many economists find that an incredible number of things fit the Pareto distriution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution such that, to make up an example, 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. In some cases, the effect might be second order, so don't ask me for proof,

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:57:40 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/2/2012 12:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:28:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote: 6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.

Re: Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Richard Ruquist There is no god in comp. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time:

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: If you disagree, please tell me why. I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this is speculative, as

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb The world is contingent and therefore not perfect. I don't see the problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:37:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:32, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto

Re: Re: A Dialog comparing Comp with Leibniz's metaphysics

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal Natural numbers are monads because 1) the are inextended substances, which is redundant to say. 2) they have no parts. That's a definition of a monad. Except to add that monads are alive, except that numbers are not very alive. I imagine one could write an entire scholarly

monads as numbers

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry. I guess I should call them monadic numbers. Not numbers as monads, but monads as numbers. The numbers I am thinking of as monads are those flying by in a particular computation. Monads are under constant change. As to history, perceptions, appetites, those would be

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark IMHO Since it is inextended, intelligence (needed for design or change or life, etc.) is omnipresent in the universe to various degrees It always has been, is now, and ever shall be. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to

Re: Re: A Dialog comparing Comp with Leibniz's metaphysics

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
Roger, Every natural number is distinct from all others. So your characterization of them as simple with no internal parts has to be incorrect. Leibniz himself says that every monad is distinct: In a confused way they all strive after [vont a] the infinite, the whole; but they are limited and

Where Chalmers went wrong

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stathis Papaioannou IMHO Chalmer's biggest error has been not to recognize that the self does not appear in all of neurophilosophy. This IMHO is the glaring shortcoming of materialism. The lights are on, but nobody's home. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say,

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean

Re: Re: Toward emulating life with a monadic computer

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King 1) The pre-established harmony is beyond the laws of physics. For nothing is perfect in this contingent world. The preestablished harmony was designed before the beginning of gthe world, and since God is good, presumably gthe pre-established harmony is the best possible one in

Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the

Re: Good is that which enhances life

2012-09-03 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased towards the dangers of Cannabis and lacking in perspective. For instance, it was claimed, and still is often claimed Cannabis reduces motivation. The notorious British pot writer Howard Marks replies to this in his book Mr.

Monads with power steering

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Richard Ruquist My claim was a bit over simplified. Although numbers do not have parts, my thinking was of monads as numbers not numbers as monads. So they have history, context, desires, etc. Monads have all kinds of accessories. Power steering anti-skid brakes, you name it. Roger

Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down. ? Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity can be falsfied: you

Re: monads as numbers

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
Hi Roger, I think of number as the conceptual continuity between the behaviors of physical things - whether it is the interior view of things as experiences through time or the exterior view of experiences as things. Numbers don't fly by in a computation, that's a cartoon. All that happens is

Re: Is evolution moral ?

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Sep 2012, at 14:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, In comp, what is the function of god. It is responsible for the existence of numbers and their relations, notably in distinguishing what is true and false. My hope is that the function of a god might be to reduce 3p tp 1p. It

Re: Good is that which enhances life

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
My experience is that canabis increases my motivation and creativity. Am I an exception? On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased towards the dangers of Cannabis and lacking

Re: Monads with power steering

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
How can monads store information without any internal parts? On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My claim was a bit over simplified. Although numbers do not have parts, my thinking was of monads as numbers not numbers as monads. So

Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect

2012-09-03 Thread John Mikes
Bruno wrote: *... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by 1) what is responsible for our existence 2) so big as to be beyond nameability Then there is a God in comp...* Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the *G O D* word in a sense paraphrasable (by me) into an imaginary

Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

2012-09-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If you disagree, please tell me why. I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be something in cells and brains that is not Turing

Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread John Mikes
Roger, again I have to violate my decision NOT to participate in your diatribes... This is a very nice 'politically correct' sounding variant of an untrue maxim. People do not 'H A T E ' the rich: they may admire, envy, detest, fight against, disagree with, obey, lick-ass, etc., but not 'hate' -

Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect

2012-09-03 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. Popper didn't say everything is falsifiable, he said if it's not falsifiable then it's pointless to subject your valuable

Re: Re: While computers are causal, life is not causal.

2012-09-03 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote I would call that reacting. Call it whatever you like, just don't call me late for dinner. But you're welcome to call it causal I think I'll do just that, and thank you for giving me permission. I believe that you

Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/3/2012 8:26 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, On the contrare, science is a product of the left, more or less, whereas anti-evolution is a product of the right, more or less. Science is selfcorrecting and so the left is constantly re-examining its conclusions whether in science or

Re: The indestructable Pareto distribution

2012-09-03 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/3/2012 8:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi R AM Many economists find that an incredible number of things fit the Pareto distriution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution such that, to make up an example, 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. In some cases, the effect might be

Re: A Dialog comparing Comp with Leibniz's metaphysics

2012-09-03 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/3/2012 9:36 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Natural numbers are monads because 1) the are inextended substances, which is redundant to say. 2) they have no parts. That's a definition of a monad. Except to add that monads are alive, except that numbers are not very alive. I imagine

Re: Where Chalmers went wrong

2012-09-03 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/3/2012 10:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou IMHO Chalmer's biggest error has been not to recognize that the self does not appear in all of neurophilosophy. This IMHO is the glaring shortcoming of materialism. The lights are on, but nobody's home. Hi Roger, You might

Re: Toward emulating life with a monadic computer

2012-09-03 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/3/2012 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1) The pre-established harmony is beyond the laws of physics. For nothing is perfect in this contingent world. The preestablished harmony was designed before the beginning of gthe world, and since God is good, presumably gthe

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If you disagree, please tell me why. I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be something in cells and

Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect

2012-09-03 Thread meekerdb
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But

Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
Stephan, You seem to agree with me but missed my point. Scientists are willing to adjust their thinking when new information is available. Fundamentalists are not because all the important information is ancient. You may argue correctly that not all scientists are left wing and not all

Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
I couldn't agree more, Stephen. Great post. The most common forms of left and right really are different forms of the same phenomenon. Statism, authority (whether of the state or of God or of science or of the market), thinking in terms of enemies and supporters. The difference is merely in

Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
FYI Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer - Says JPL Scientist 3 September, 2012 Share this story: Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 5 Follow us: MessageToEagle.com - Are we just a computer simulation? Who or what is the creator? More

Re: The indestructable Pareto distribution

2012-09-03 Thread R AM
Marxism is more a criticism of capitalism than an economic system. I guess the system should be called centralized planning. The system and the policy can make a big difference in distributio of wealth. The nordic countries are very egalitarian (and rich) countries. So it was Japan. Germany is

Re: Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer

2012-09-03 Thread meekerdb
On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels That's way overstated. The evidence is against space being

Re: Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer

2012-09-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
I did not write that. I know about the Fermi telescope results as they falsify Loop Quantum Gravity. Richard On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of

Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Richard, If Fundamentalist where setting federal policy then I would be in your camp. They do not, therefore the entire issue is suspicious. Why is a particular group being picked out for derision? This is the first step of Alinski's methodology

Re: Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer

2012-09-03 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/3/2012 5:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels That's way overstated. The

Re: Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
Even if there were evidence of quantized space, it could not be distinguished from evidence of quantized synchronization of detection. All instruments that we can interface with directly are made of solid matter. When solid matter interacts with itself, the result is quantifiable (as it would

Re: Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:11:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It's OK as far as the left goes to hate the rich. To them, nothing the left does is ever wrong. Is there any ideology in which the members think that what they do is wrong? You can criticize the left

Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs,

Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
I should add a number 5...Cognitive Bias. How is it not obvious that computer scientists would want to believe very badly in the unlimited potential of developing computers? Why is this not considered a factor? We have study after study showing how the human mind is so effective at fooling

Re: Personally I call the Platonic realm anything inextended. Anything outside of spacetime.

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:33:34 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Personally I call the Platonic realm anything inextended. Time necessarily drops out if space drops out. I see the opposite. If space drops out, all you have is time. I can count to 10 in my mind without

Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Monday, September 3, 2012 1:38:03 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. Popper didn't say everything is

Re: Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer

2012-09-03 Thread meekerdb
On 9/3/2012 9:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Even if there were evidence of quantized space, it could not be distinguished from evidence of quantized synchronization of detection. All theories of discrete space proposed so far predict that there will be a slight dependence of the speed of

Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

2012-09-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence