Re: KIM 2.1

2008-12-24 Thread John Mikes
Bruno and Kim, enjoyable discours by two math.-ly impaired minds (excuse me Kim!) - I met several youngsters (up to 70 y.o.) who simply had no 'pitch' to math - yet were good smart artists, even business(wo)men, parents and technicians (not so with politicians, they are not what I call 'smart').

Re: Reality

2008-12-25 Thread John Mikes
Bruno et al.: I don't feel comfortable with the view reality *OF* something. Reality IMO is the unfathomable existence (whatever that may be) and *WE - machines, mind,* you name it are having access to portions that we interpret (realize?) in ways *we can.* This portion (part, view, ensemble,

Re: Reality

2008-12-28 Thread John Mikes
with 'MJ': Tnanks for the reply John On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John, On 25 Dec 2008, at 14:46, John Mikes wrote: Bruno et al.: I don't feel comfortable with the view reality *OF* something. Reality IMO is the unfathomable existence (whatever

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-08 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences. Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics. * Bruno quotes in

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread John Mikes
- physics). (Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt' the focus of my post.) John M On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions (thought

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-10 Thread John Mikes
/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf for a refresher. John M On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: John Mikes wrote: Brent wrote: ...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the influence of the rest of the world is non-local (i.e

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-13 Thread John Mikes
Stathis, common sense, not always applicable to math-related topics is startled before a task on a REGULAR contraption-type Turing machine (binary, electrically driven finite hardware etc.) can emulate ALL the potentials of 11+billion neurons in unrestricted groupings and unlimited connectivities

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-14 Thread John Mikes
meanings? I wish to look further - especially on this list. John On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/14 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Stathis, common sense, not always applicable to math-related topics is startled before a task

Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-21 Thread John Mikes
second): the transition of NO TIME into a 'time-system' - expressed in terms of physical quantization applied to the Big Bang conditions. I don't want to start an argument on this, I am not ready - it is a narrative. Have a good 2009 John Mikes On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Stephen Paul King

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-23 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, thanks for 4z1, I find it an exciting (although not in all details for me followable text) in beautiful French (your language!) which I have to pronounce (silently) to understand (mostly) and did not study all along so far. Also the supporting lit is remarkable - it was decades ago when I

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-28 Thread John Mikes
Günther and Bruno, am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study all those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and could even have a chance to learn all those advancing ideas over the next 30 or so years... Makes me think of it: 30-40 years ago I WAS

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-31 Thread John Mikes
Kim, beware of your heroic offer! I read some books in both the original and translated formats and KNOW that they are different. Not only has the translator his 1st person understanding of WHAT to translate, the words convey the new language's ambiguity for the reader's OWN 1st person

Re: consciousness and self-awareness

2009-02-07 Thread John Mikes
(at least our views about it). The ancients had is 'simplicate'-ly. Oriental philosophy acknowledged our ignorance and blurrly built upon it. (so do Zadeh and the 'fuzzy' scientists nowadays). Best regards John Mikes On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-02-08 Thread John Mikes
somehow into doing something. What?? Best Wishes, Günther JM: Respectfully John John Mikes wrote: Günther and Bruno, am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study all those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and could even have

Re: The Seventh Step 1 (Numbers and Notations)

2009-02-11 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, just lightening up a bit...you know that I graduated already from 2nd yr grade school so I have an open mind criticizing high science. Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does not mean 3 to me, it means 111. You have to teach first what those funny 'figures'

Re: A summary I just wrote for my blog

2009-02-12 Thread John Mikes
Kim, I presume you have clear ideas about what 'life' may be (to live?) and the a-temporal distinction of 'ever'. (It is definitely not = 'a long long time'). I paraphrase you wisdom as: time in our opinion goes as long as we live(?) so 'after that' is not identified. My reasons for not

Re: The Seventh Step 1 (Numbers and Notations)

2009-02-12 Thread John Mikes
My present inserts in Italics - some parts of the posts erased for brevity John On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Feb 2009, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote: (...) Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does

Re: physical laws as optimal inference

2009-02-14 Thread John Mikes
Nisheeth? there are a dozen pdf Google hits in that 'half' name. Diverse titles, topics, even several different personal names. Do you have a hint WHAT to (and whom to) look at? Are you at Georgia Tech? JohnM On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Do it

Re: Copying?

2009-02-22 Thread John Mikes
Stephen, you've hit a nerve with *'copying':* ** *Fundamental *questions: *1.WHO *(what) is copying and *HOW*? 2.*INTO* what(?) is copying being done? Then are continuing questions: 3. Does the 'COPY' (to be considerably identical) have identical interconnective circumstances as does the

Re: Personal Identity and Ethics

2009-02-22 Thread John Mikes
Stathis, I usually appreciate the wisdom in your posts. Now I have a retort: ...What I find incoherent is the idea that the psychological properties might be able to be duplicated but nevertheless there is no continuity of identity because the soul cannot be duplicated. If you accept the topic

Re: Personal Identity and Ethics

2009-02-23 Thread John Mikes
not like to be identified with that earlier 'John' - say: 2 year old, or fetus, without mental experiences and capabilities. (This was the question I re-asked a Muslim when she referred to an earlier me to get to Heaven, instead of the sick old senile dying folks - what I asked originally.) John Mikes

Re: Personal Identity and Ethics

2009-02-24 Thread John Mikes
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/2/24 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Stathis: two questions. 1. Why are you breaking your head HOW to copy something we don't believe 'exists' at all? If it aint, don't copy it. Copy what? Copy

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

2009-02-27 Thread John Mikes
Brent: who is making that 'backup' or 'replica' of you? and why? you people take it for granted that a (supernatural???) authority has nothing else to do except making replicas of members of the Everything List. And you observe, how good - or bad - its work is. Some teleological view of pantheism

Re: The Seventh Step 2 (Numbers and Sets: facultary!)

2009-03-06 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, this is my reply to your SeventhStep-2 post. Still not clear; Axiom 1 says I is 'a' number, - OK. Axiom 2 sais x which I understand is general for any number. So xI is not different from II. The example: (say) I is 2, x=3, xI=32 and your 'II' is not 'a' number, but two numbers

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

2009-03-09 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, - again the bartender... * Initial remark: I like Gunther's parenthetical condition of arithmetic consistency - which I find not assured in DIFFERENT universes. As I said axioms (2+2=4) are in my opinion *thought - conditions* to make one's theory workable and so they are conditioned by

Re: Wolfram Alpha

2009-03-10 Thread John Mikes
Kim, this seems to be a so far undiscussed domain and I have some concerns. First off: the English usage mixes up 'education' with 'teaching'. Schools have a task to transform unformatted teen-beasts into constructive beings, what I call 'education'. That may be a very controversial thing,

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

2009-03-12 Thread John Mikes
Gunther wrote: ...assuming that _every_ computation is conscious qua computation? brings up in my mind: thinking in comp (at least: in numbers) translates 'conscious' into 'computed' ?? (That would imply an elevation from the binary embryonic contraption as our computer into more

Re: Changing the past by forgetting

2009-03-16 Thread John Mikes
'think' creatively and profusely about millions of dollars to get rich? I will). Respectfully John Mikes On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Saibal Mitra smi...@zeelandnet.nl wrote: Thanks! This is like undoing historical events. If you forget about the fact that dinosaurs ever lived on Earth

Re: Altered states of consciousness

2009-03-23 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, I enjoyed your pretty comprehensive post! Thanks! John PS one little question: have you ever been 'present' when in REM? JM On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Johnathan, Kim, Stathis I agree with you Johnathan. Scientists learn a lot from

Re: d'Espagnat wins Templeton Award

2009-03-26 Thread John Mikes
Kim, Indeed I raised my voice against *labeling* and doing so exclusively *in a certain direction of a personalized (societal? cultural?) view.* And what did I get as a scolding cold shower? *another 'labeling'*: * called: * *VALUES*. They, too, can be 'good or bad' in the restricted views we

Re: Altered states of consciousness

2009-03-26 Thread John Mikes
Kim, I would not search in Bruno's generalized theoretical scientific write-up answers to ANY/ALL particular question in (and out of) all domain(s). In my worldview (I wish I could compose it in a text callable scientific) the interconnection of the totality (relations of ALL to ALL) brings

Re: Altered states of consciousness

2009-03-28 Thread John Mikes
domain. John On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, On 23 Mar 2009, at 23:44, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I enjoyed your pretty comprehensive post! Thanks! John PS one little question: have you ever been 'present' when in REM? I feel like I am

Re: Altered states of consciousness

2009-03-30 Thread John Mikes
Stathis: (in your text): ...or an unrelated person's consciousness...??? I agree with you when you say: losing all memories erases your personality (consciousnessless state) - but where do you pick that 'unrelted person's one, which also can only based on that 'unrelated person's' memory etc.

Re: Altered states of consciousness

2009-04-03 Thread John Mikes
Brent, I read this discussion and 'try' not to get involved (never succeedG). * Ourselves w/wout our memories? what else? These terms come from the ancient religious fable about a 'soul' - the person in the faith-domain. Even the old Indians made 'reincarnation' hazy without memories and the only

Re: Altered states of consciousness

2009-04-04 Thread John Mikes
Brent: right on! It all seems to me that we have no fitting meanings (whatver) of memory, identity, forgetting, recalling and the entire vocabulary we apply to things unknown. We only think so. The fact that Bruno puts equationally expressed formulations (numbers) to it does not make it more

Re: New Thinkers Website

2009-04-17 Thread John Mikes
. I neglected a deeper search THEN. I will look into the DeBobo oeuvre again, because I value YOUR recommendation. Thanks. With friendship John Mikes On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: http://www.debonosociety.com/ What's important? Thinking is perhaps

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-21 Thread John Mikes
Jesse, I always appreciated your posts as considerate, logical and most professional. Now I a not so sure... Brent mixed up a bit the concepts, even stirring in interpretation into meaning, you speak about our real world - a joke. All because both of you are infected with a

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-21 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, you made my day when you wrote: *SOMEHOW - *in: ...The machine has to be runned or executed relatively to a universal machine. You need the Peano or Robinson axiom to define such states and sequences of states. You can shuffled them if you want, and somehow the UD does shuffle them by its

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-28 Thread John Mikes
Stathis, I think Bruno is not realistic enough. Here is a better story - a solution to understand the situation: - *The Financial Crisis Explained* Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin . In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-03 Thread John Mikes
Stathis, and listers, I cannot help: I read the text. (Not always, sometimes it seems too obtuse for me even to 'read' it). The Subject? ( Consciousness = information ) what happens to that darn 'information'? Oops, 'you' are AWARE of it!? Meaning: you *DO* something with it (to be - become?

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-03 Thread John Mikes
I would like to go along with Maudlin's point emphasized in Bruno's text below, adding that causal structure is restricted to the limited model of which we *CAN *choose likely 'causes' within our perceived reality, while the unlimited possibilities include wider 'intrusions' of domains 'beyond our

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-11 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, who was that French poet who made puns after death? JohnM On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 May 2009, at 19:15, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev:

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-12 Thread John Mikes
late, let's go to sleep. Well??? (I believe this is the most meaningful word in English) John M On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, On 11 May 2009, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote: who was that French poet who made puns after death

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-13 Thread John Mikes
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno, merci pour le nom Jean Cocteau. J'ai voulu montrer que je semble vivant. I told my young bride of 61 years (originally economist, but follows all the plaisantries I speculate on) about the assumptions you guys

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-14 Thread John Mikes
identification is NO democratic voting matter, if 100 so called 'experts' voice an opinion I may still represent the right one in a single-vote different position. Thanks for your input John M On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/5/13 John Mikes jami

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-17 Thread John Mikes
Let me please insert my remarks into this remarkable chain of thoughts below (my inserts in bold) John M On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: Kelly Harmon wrote: I think your discussing the functional aspects of consciousness. AKA, the easy problems

Re: Victor Korotkikh

2009-05-17 Thread John Mikes
I read in this exchange: I have a problem with infinite time (or something of such meaning). Since IMO time is an auxiliary coordinate to 'order the view from the inside of this (our) universe and in view of the partial knowledge we so far obtained about it, it is (our?) choice HOW we construct

Re: logic mailing list

2009-05-18 Thread John Mikes
Bruno: could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic? (I can read the dictionaries, Wiki, etc.) I always say :common sense, but what I am referring to is *-- -- M Y -- -- common sense, * distorted - OK, interpreted - according to my genetic built, my experience (sum of

Re: logic mailing list

2009-05-19 Thread John Mikes
with. :) --Abram On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno: could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic? (I can read the dictionaries, Wiki, etc.) I always say :common sense, but what I am referring to is -- -- M Y -- -- common

Re: logic mailing list

2009-05-19 Thread John Mikes
of the model, the content, the statistics and probability will change as well. Even the causality circumstances (so elusive in my views). * ** *Regards* *John* ** ** On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, On 18 May 2009, at 21:00, John Mikes wrote

Re: logic mailing list

2009-05-20 Thread John Mikes
ignorance in my questions/remarks on what I think I sort of understood. I may be 'on the other side'. Best regards John On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 May 2009, at 00:01, John Mikes wrote: As always, thanks, Bruno for taking the time

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-23 Thread John Mikes
to. (Leaving open the term 'you - conscious' as a deus ex machina quale-addition for the replacement). Just looking through differently colored goggles. John Mikes On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 May 2009, at 18:25

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-29 Thread John Mikes
(random?) elements come into play? (Isn't THAT also a human idea by the darn consciousness?) I planed to illustrate my basis and presently developed best own belief system, but it is not of general interest and I don't want to persuade (convert? seduce?) anybody to similar position. Peace! John

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

2009-06-01 Thread John Mikes
Russell, I second (if it is of any worth). I 'tried' to read the diatribes on the html page and my perseverence ws not sufficient to stay in he lines. Some concepts seem to be mixed (I did not say up) e.g. to identify 'reality' one should get a hold of it and I found 'physical' sketchy (maybe I

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-07 Thread John Mikes
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: [[[ Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-10 Thread John Mikes
society where the communication consisted of direct transfer of ideas. There was NO discussion. Respectfully John Mikes On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se wrote: Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything

Re: When is this?

2009-06-15 Thread John Mikes
to be above(G) such. (=Outside this box). With 'immortality' I connect our thinking in time, the ordinating relation for* this* universe and our thinking *within*, (for)'ever' is not a timely term, so eternity may be atemporal. - Q or not. Regards John Mikes On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Re: The seven step series

2009-06-30 Thread John Mikes
, (who's?) - with thanks so far John Mikes On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Johnathan, On 29 Jun 2009, at 17:22, Johnathan Corgan wrote: Bruno, I think you were off to a good start with your planned series of posts about the seven step argument

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-01 Thread John Mikes
...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, On 30 Jun 2009, at 14:32, John Mikes wrote: Hi, Bruno you know that I am in a different mindset, yet happy to read your train of thoughts. I consider a set a limited model of elements (and conclusions thereof are not applicable to wider domains) - Well

Re: Non unique Universe

2009-07-02 Thread John Mikes
Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: *In modern cosmology, a **multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes* that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many 'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I

set incompleteness

2009-07-04 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, I mentioned that I have something more on the 'set' as you (and all since G. Cantor) included it in the formulations. I had a similar notion about my aris-total, the definition of Aristotle that the 'total' is always more than the 'sum' of its components. Of course, at the time when A.

set

2009-07-04 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further explanations. You inserted a remark after quoting from my post: * * If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better level (say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations (unlimited) to the names of

Re: set

2009-07-05 Thread John Mikes
'Occam' the ultimate reductionism. * *(I wonder if Russell will excommunicate me for that?) * *John* Original message: On 04 Jul 2009, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further explanations. You inserted a remark after quoting from my post

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-12 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, when I looked at the set-analysis it immediately popped up that {1,3} was missing, - YET - this *fantasticG* discovery of mine did not bring me closer to the idea what are numbers. It seems I can win the battle and still lose the war. John On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:05 PM, m.a.

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-14 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, I appreciate your grade-school teaching. We (I for one) can use it. I still find that whatever you explain is an 'extract' of what can be thought of a 'set' (a one representing a many). Your 'powerset' is my example. All those elements you put into { }s are the same as were the physical

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-16 Thread John Mikes
*Please read between your lines included in bold* letters *John * On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jul 2009, at 00:50, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I appreciate your grade-school teaching. We (I for one) can use it. I still find that whatever you

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-28 Thread John Mikes
that, I see an old artifax of a problem, how to save obsolescence into advancement. I am not ready to go into that. John Mikes On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-30 Thread John Mikes
to return to this post with smarter reflections some time. John Mikes On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/28 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Hi John I really do not expect from you to give adequate replies to all these questions - it would make

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-30 Thread John Mikes
Hi, Bruno, let me skip the technical part and jump on the following text. *F u n c t i o n* as I believe is - for you - the y = f(x) *form*. For me: the *activity -* shown when plotting on a coordinate system the f(x) values of the Y-s to the values on the x-axle resulting in a relation (curve).

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-01 Thread John Mikes
David, I thought you are facing the Scottish mountains for a relaxation and instead here is a long - enjoyable- tirade about ideas which I try to put below into a shorthand form by *my* vocabulary. But first a plea to Mrs. N: *'please, do keep David away from te computer for the time of the

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-03 Thread John Mikes
between human and non human a human illusion? With Church Turing thesis we can suspect the existence of universal illusions. Bruno On 01 Aug 2009, at 21:52, John Mikes wrote: David, I thought you are facing the Scottish mountains for a relaxation and instead here is a long - enjoyable

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-03 Thread John Mikes
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: ... I am proposing, I suppose: CONSCIOUSNESS = EVERYTHING ELSE ... Rex, I arrived at the phrase as the ultimate rationalization and generalization of things people write (back-and-forth) about consciousness: *Consciousness

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-04 Thread John Mikes
Bruno and Mirek, concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus: in my strange linguistic background I make a difference betwee ai and ae - the spelling in Greek and Latin of the name. As far as I know, nobody knows for sure how did the 'ancient' Greeks pronounce their ai - maybe as the flat 'e' like

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-05 Thread John Mikes
Theaetetus. But in french too, more and more people forget to attach the o and e in words like oeuvre, or soeur (sister). Bruno On 04 Aug 2009, at 15:05, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Mirek, concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus: in my strange linguistic background I make a difference

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread John Mikes
Rex, (I guess the unsigned text below came from you) thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on Conscious Experience! John Mikes On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-25 Thread John Mikes
David, (and Stathis?) I appreciate David's 1,2,3, variations on the *it's or our,* but you just destroyed my position with *I should perhaps emphasise that purely for the purposes of the argument I'm assuming brain = mind to be a one-for-one correlation.* Well, not entirely. If WE cannot desipher

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread John Mikes
- On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/25 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: David, (and Stathis?) I appreciate David's 1,2,3, variations on the it's or our, but you just destroyed my position with I should perhaps emphasise that purely

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-29 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, what do you call physics? our figment based upon the old Greek's smart sophistication as THEY saw the material world, or the science BEFORE Niels Bohr, or after QM, the newer (recent?) theories galore, or the 'scientific' stance that will develop during the next millennia? (Which still

7 steps etc.

2009-09-01 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, I am waiting for your explanatory post(s) and anxiously read some several thousand pages with related topics. Unfortunately the technical examples and discussing their solutions are not much help. I cannot extract the now-and-then interlaced text-explanations, even if I find them,

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-03 Thread John Mikes
Dear Peter, the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting reading - except for missing the crux: You, as a person, with knowledge about the ideas of the bickering philosophers, could do us the politesse of a brief summary about who is stating what (very few lines) which may increase

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-06 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, there is a lot of wisdom in your post. Your last sentence, however, may apply to that wisdom as well I am afraid. ...I have to assume that [such] truth are not dependent of me,... - nor on anything else we may know of. I stay clear of 'truth' which is applied in whoever's theory - as 'his'

Re: Brain-computer interface and quantum robots

2009-09-10 Thread John Mikes
Ronald. I pursue (vaguely) such development and - though have no intention to outguess Bruno's opinion - find it a VERY PRACTICAL (may I call it: e-bio) line. (lineS - plural). Quite amazing results have been so far achieved in this IMO totally initial phase. I can't wait how the

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-12 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, the more I read here on the Church thesis the less I know about it. Is there a short description in 'non-technical' words about the 'essence' you hold instrumental in the applications you apply? John M On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 4 Sep,

Re: Ants are not conscious

2009-09-13 Thread John Mikes
'human terms'). I am not an 'antologist', I missed your paper last year. Have a good time John Mikes On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Dr Nick, I think part of what the mirror test attempts to establish is that the animal recognizes the reflection

Re: The seven step series

2009-09-17 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, I loved your post on the square root of 2! (I also laughed at it, to stay at the puns). You went out of your way and did not save efforts to prove how inadequate and wrong (y)our number system is. (ha ha). Statement: *if square-rooting is right* (allegedly, and admittedly) *then THERE IS

Re: The seven step series

2009-09-17 Thread John Mikes
, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, On 17 Sep 2009, at 15:14, John Mikes wrote: You went out of your way and did not save efforts to prove how inadequate and wrong (y)our number system is. (ha ha). Wrong ? Statement: *if square-rooting is right* (allegedly

Re: The seven step series

2009-09-18 Thread John Mikes
that was outside of them. Sorry, when it comes to speculation, I am jumpy. I did not know about those non-natural naturals. Have a good day John On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:17, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, it is not very

Re: first-person vs third person view

2009-10-04 Thread John Mikes
Excellent points, Stathis. What I would add (maybe as my Ciceronian Ceterum censeo) is the lack of a knowable POV of P3: 'we' can only realize OUR version of understanding about it. The POV S1 = S2 is true only at the instantiation, because affter that both are under non-identical influences of

Re: first-person vs third person view

2009-10-05 Thread John Mikes
! ha ha) mind. Have a good week John Mikes On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/10/5 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Excellent points, Stathis. What I would add (maybe as my Ciceronian Ceterum censeo) is the lack of a knowable POV of P3: 'we

Re: The seven step series

2009-10-10 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, we had similar puzzles in middle school in the 30s. The barber could not shave himself because he shaved only those who did not shave themselves (and shaved all). So for (Q #1) in the 1st vriant *she(?)* was a female, unless *he(?)* was a beardless male (and the 'all' refers to only the

Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed

2009-11-07 Thread John Mikes
Marty, how about my weird question: and if 1 is wrong and what he 'sees' as OA is only a replica of the OA and is WRONG? Is 'being a replica' a human priviledge? (Forget it!) John M On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:04 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: Bruno, Good to see you back! I

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-14 Thread John Mikes
DON'T KNOW position. Best regards John Mikes On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Kim, Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very nice talk. I appreciate a lot. She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-05 Thread John Mikes
(for me) arguments on the numbers-originated everything - in the wider sense. But this is not this thread). John Mikes PS now - it seems - I joined the choir. JM On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2009, at 01:30, Brent Meeker wrote: It is also

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-06 Thread John Mikes
?) or on a public lecture, where questions and opposite opinions could be expected. Best for the hooiday season: this may be a present for Chirstmas. On St. Nicholas Day John Mikes On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2009, at 21:00, Rex Allen wrote

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-06 Thread John Mikes
Rex, or Brent? (I am mixed up between th (-)s and the unmarked text. No signature. I rather paste my cpmment to the end of this posting, since it pertains to the last par.-s. John M On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent

Re: paper on view of reality

2009-12-18 Thread John Mikes
Ronald: WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in science' - explanatory figment. John M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at

Re: paper on view of reality

2009-12-19 Thread John Mikes
M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Ronald: WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts

Re: Robotic Scientist

2009-12-27 Thread John Mikes
Russell, - interesting idea and I appreciate it within the line I don't really appreciate. I pretend to be one of the 'research oriented' - I am reluctant of saying scientist - which may fit into a robot-performed activity. In the commi administration I had a pretty free hand to come up with ideas

Re: Definition of universe

2009-12-29 Thread John Mikes
. It outlines a view about (our and other) universes in a not-so-scientific manner. Good luck to it and to other views John Mikes On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Mindey min...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how do we define

Re: Robotic Scientist

2009-12-29 Thread John Mikes
agree with your ending: How to define new, [for example]. It is a relative concept. Happy 2010 John M On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2009, at 23:16, russell standish wrote: On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:54:53AM -0500, John Mikes wrote: I wonder

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >