you guys should check out
Dark City (has a platonic reality isn't really real thing going on)
Moon (has a memory/identity/AI thing going on)
Source Code (has a 'its just numbers being computed' thing going on)
Tarkovsky's Solaris and Stalker are also pretty stunning if you can handle 10
mi
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
>> Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
>> invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did not
>> comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named
>> &
Hi Quentin
>> I do not, valid critics are valid,
By definition mate.
>> but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he
>> maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does
>> not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, th
Hi Bruno
>> Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only him
That's a good way of spinning the fact that for two years it is in reality you
who has failed to convince him.
All the best
Chris
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subje
Hi Liz
>>Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and
>>can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps
>>simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that
>>duplication is possible.
my objections were to do wit
>>how can facts exist that are not grounded in observation at some point?
Russell and Liz are wandering around the countryside and Liz points at the
ground and says:
"there's a gold coin buried right there."
Russell says:
"no there isn't"
They both walk on without looking. And in the subseque
Hi Quentin
>>They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked. So I'll
>>try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with simple yes/no questions and
>>explanation from your part.
So I will first describe the setup and will suppose for the argument that what
we will do (du
Hi Liz
>>Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter
transmitter sends you to another solar system where you will live out
the reminder of your life. Maybe you committed some crime and this is
the consequence, to be "transported" :) A malfunction causes you
to be duplicated and sent to bot
Hi Bruno
By and large you didn't get my response to Quentin and largely the comments you
made didn't actually address the comments I was making, or the questions I was
asking Quentin. It seems more as if you were addressing comments you hoped I
was making but didn't. With respect then I've just
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:19:47 +1100
> From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
> >
> > My probabilities get
Hi Liz
>> Let's also suppose you don't know which solar system you will be sent to,
>> and that in fact the matter transmitter is supposed to send you to A or B
>> with equal probability based on some "quantum coin flip". But by accident it
>> duplicates you, and sends you to both. This effect
Hi Quentin
>> then I can't see how you could still agree with many world interpretation
>> and reject probability, that's not consistent... unless of course, you
>> reject MWI.
I definitely wouldn't say I accept MWI. But even so, not everyone who does
accept it agrees that there is subjective
a...@davidnyman.com
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:32:01 +
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck
e Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 February 2014 13:05, chris peck wrote:
Since Everett there have been numerous attempts to smuggle an account of
probability back into the theory, and more recent attempts: Deutsch, Wallace,
Greaves etc., do that b
Hi Quentin
>>That's nonsense,
The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less
about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the
same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just
discovered that there are. A
7;no
probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory' be my guest. Im always up
for a laugh.
All the best
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:43:33 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02
Hi Liz
>> In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of "you" has
>> been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for
identity over time?
With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I
.@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck wrote:
Hi Liz
>> In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of "you" has
>> been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you&#x
Hi Bruno
>> Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views.
There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these.
>>She should have said: "whatever she knows she will see, she should expect
>>(with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite".
But, If she had of said that you'd
s in
which 'we' appear.
All the best
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck :
Hi Bruno
>> Yes, it is t
:33:21 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01:00 chris peck :
Hi Liz
>> I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume
>> there is only one you, which is (or is
Hi Edgar
>>It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by
quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be
no deterministic rules for aligning
separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those
alignments randomly.
Far out, man!
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014
>> If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote
>> down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the
>> sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring
>> about 50% of the time.
There's something strikes me as
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/2/2014 11:36 PM, chris peck wrote:
>> If you repeated the cloning experiment
from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number
each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of
Hi Liz
>> 0001 0010 0011 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1010
>> 1011 1100 1101 1110
Of which I'm fairly sure half the digits are 0 and half 1!
What am I missing here?
If you concatenate all those strings together you'll get a bigger string in
which the proportion
Hi Liz
>> I'm not sure I follow.
Me neither.
>> wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that
>> the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros
>> occurring about 50% of the time."
there would be no 'about' it were your interpretation righ
tion of subsequences that have
exactly equally 1s and 0s goes down.
Brent
On 3/3/2014 8:32 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Liz
>> I'm not sure I follow.
Me neither.
>> wrote down your room number
Hi Jason/Gabriel
Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a
mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments, to
think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common.
I do maintain that proportions of roughly 50/50 splits are a spuri
Hi Bruno
>> The question is: can you refute this.
To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not. Though
perhaps you have an ideological agenda and are just trying very hard not to be
refuted?
>> And for the UDA, you don't need the 50%. You need only to assess the
>> indete
Hi Bruno
>>Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective
uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are
mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction
of ev
Hi Bruno
>> ou cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme. You
>> must say at which step rigor is lacking.
I think you're missing the fact that I was poking fun at a comment you made to
Liz. Don't worry about it.
>> You make vague negative proposition containing precise
Hi Bruno
>> With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
"What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise:
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.
So, she should
Hi Bruno
>> With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different
vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
"What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise:
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.
>> you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of
Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy
Cool. Rockin' All
on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck wrote:
>> you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of
Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocol
ver put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck wrote:
>> you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop mus
word clue -
Enthusiastically attack butter (4)
...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were
McLaren's "boy band" really.
PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it
The way the future was
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:21:52 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:49:01 PM UTC, chris peck wrote:
>> you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the ch
>> It depends, sometimes yes... But at other times thought provoking gloom can
>> be fun, while light, non-gloom fun can seem cheap and pandering. Just
>> depends on situation. Right now, I don't know if what I'm listening to is
>> light or gloomy and thought provoking. It has a minimal sort of
Hi Bruno
>> >> >>But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a
>> >> >>maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent
>> >> >>with the FPI, without naming it.
>> >>Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept
>> >>that. I mean
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic
about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other
interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would
make you less ill yo
>>I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
different mathematical structures, all of which are in Borges
Library of Babel. Almost all of them are just lists of what
happens. Scott's point is th
re talking
about something other than dodgy metaphysical consequences such as
'immortality'. We're want something that can be measured.
From: stath...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:12:09 +1100
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you actually live
>>forever.
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one thing it
isn't is significant.
The continuation of an experiential history on some other earth, a history
common to the one that jus
usally influence one another. From an
operational stand point they simply do not exist relative to one another.
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:25:11 +1300
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 26 March 2014 16:22, chris peck wrote:
>> But that feeling only arises from the assumption (or gut feeling) that there
>> is only one observer, both before and after the measurement.
Quite, it arises from a mistake which would vanish in a true 'comp
practitioner'.
The feeling that although I would become each observer and therefor
ference back to section 4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
>> There are multiple experiencers, each having possibly different experiences.
>> For some class of those experiencers you can attach the label "chris peck".
>> This allows you to say: "chris pe
Hi Jason
>> Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person.
The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience isn't
indexical, its just me.
>> This page offers some examples of the distinction (
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/#PurIndTruDem ).
Thanks. Im
Hi Bruno
Hi Bruno
>>The uncertainty is objective
How can uncertainty be objective Bruno?
Uncertainty is a predicate applicable to experiences only.
>> To insist, I use "first person indeterminacy" instead of subjective
>> indeterminacy
In step 3 you ask the reader to assess what he would 'fe
Stephen Lin.
A new bike?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:43:32 -0400
Subject: Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my
journey?
From: yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Are you the famous basketball player from Harvard, then the Knicks and now
elsewhere.
I thought knowledge was knowing that tomatoes are fruit, and wisdom was knowing
not to put them in a fruit salad.
From: sw...@post.harvard.edu
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:12:57 -0700
Subject: About wisdom
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Wisdom is the art of coming up with believable excuses f
yep. organity is emergent.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:46:54 +1300
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their
persis
>> The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a
brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its
behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally
could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing.
Aliens don't matter. They can b
Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:09 PM, chris peck
wrote:
At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the
computer is learning or thinking about grammar. It is a matter of
philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking as
about thought by changing its definition.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:52:39 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:41 PM, chris peck
wrote:
>> Unfortunately w
s
>> will be had does not eliminate this uncertainty.
I keep pointing out that the question is asked prior to duplication and you
keep ignoring that.
>> According to your usage, in which you have no uncertainty because you know
>> future chris pecks, following duplication,
Hi Jason
You're presenting the exact same situation in a different context in the hope
that it will clarify the issues for me, I suppose. My response is exactly the
same for your new version as it is for the original. The same as it is for
Bruno's example in which the duplications involved expl
Hi Jason (again)
in your response to Brent:
>>Personally I believe no theory that aims to attach persons to one
>>psychological or physiological continuity can be successful.
ok, but in Bruno's step 3 it is taken as axiomatic that you survive in both
branches because there is a continuity of p
http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though.
I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet might
be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed models of
the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst flaw
A question Roger:
To recap:
"there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or God) that
perceives and acts, doing this through the Surpreme (most dominant) monad.
It perceives the whole universe with perfect clarity. "
"Only it can perceive and act . the Supreme Monad continually and
>> This is a "theorem", once we suppose the mind is Turing emulable.
not actually a theorem if we don't, tho' ?
More to the point, it might well be that materialism IS a joke. But Roger's
attempt to show this is no closer to the mark than Dr. Johnson kicking his
stone was to disproving idealism
l think the angst has more to do with concerns about state power than it has to
do with an emergent super brain controlling my noodle with monadic fairy dust,
Roger.
>> perhaps the materialists can devise an equivalent explanation of a global
>> mind...
Im guessing here but l think they'll sti
Hi Rog
As you have described them a materialist could not be a "combination of both"
rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If
"reason alone" is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be
combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontologic
--- Original Message ---
From: "Roger Clough"
Sent: 22 June 2013 11:26 AM
To: "- Roger Clough"
Subject: Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is
matter.
Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is matter.
What if mind is matter ?
If min
Hi Roger
So long as Im not a hapless monad subjected to an influx of incomplete and
distorted 'percepts' via a supreme monad, I'm more than happy to be a Zombie. I
might be dead but at least I'm not deluded and neither one of us has much of a
claim on having free will. Moreover, being a zombie
Hi Roger
>> This boggles my mind. I am purely matter. ?
Should be: This boggles my mind. I am not I.
regards.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:22:11 +0200
Hi Roger,
I was searching for my Vasubandhu
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. If
someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God.
--- Original Message ---
From: "meekerdb"
Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
On 7/9/2013
Re: Hitch
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck wrote:
> Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
> word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
> belive in God.
>
>
But you don't know what God the atheist doesn
ys was.
From: jasonre...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck wrote:
If some one says "look, cat" I don't know what kind of cat they are refering
to. I nevertheless can be
To Jason:
>>Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even
>>realizing it has done so.
How can you possibly speak for atheists generally in this regard? Particularly
after the arguments you have been making! What do you know of all the
possibilities they have entertaine
Hi Roger
hmmm. sort of. Lowering interest rates, creating cheap money, in part
encouraged banks to lend to people they ordinarily would not have. This put
more buyers on the market and that increase in demand led to a rise in house
prices. Of course, when the interest rates went up, those loans
Hi Rog
A taste for fat 'helped us survive' back in the day. Doesnt mean it will be
much use now. Infact now it just causes obesity and revulsion in the people you
should be trying to attract. The ecology changes, see? Same with racism. If it
ever was of use, unlikely but 'if' it was, nowadays
alism : the way of creating wealth OUT OF THIN AIR
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:22:49 +0200
>
>
> On 16 Jul 2013, at 16:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:09 AM, chris peck
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Roger
> >>
> >> hmmm. sor
led.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:37:49 -0500
On Jul 17, 2013, at 5:21 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Rog
A taste for fat 'helped us survive' back in the day. Doesnt mean it will be
much use now. Infact now it just causes obesity and revulsion in the people you
should be trying to attra
Hi Alberto
I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin
based alphabets?
--- Original Message ---
From: "Alberto G. Corona"
Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
the asimilation sound-
ecause the inventors of the
alphabets also had these innate associations.
2013/7/19 chris peck
Hi Alberto
I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin
based alphabets?
--- Original Message ---
From: "Alberto G. Corona"
@ Telmo
Hi Telmo
>> The key word here is "leveraged". Ultimately, this level of leveraging
is only possible because the Fed can create money out of thin air.
You'll have to elaborate on that. As far as I am aware the banks were leveraged
by money currently in circulation. Loans made by insuranc
e jagged letters and viceversa. it does not go beyond that.
(alphabets are phonetic, most of them, scripting systems have not to be
alphabetic nor phonetic, can be ideographic, like chiness in which case it is
meaningless to associate )
2013/7/19 chris peck
Hi Alberto
But alphabets
Thanks Telmo
That sheds a little more light on where
you're coming from. I watched those videos with interest and found
the Austrian school fascinating. Apologies in advance for the length
of this post and for the howling errors in reasoning it undoubtedly
contains. I’m just a beginner!
So t
Hi Rog
I'm getting the feeling here, that you're not a liberal... is that right?
:)
From: rclo...@verizon.net
To: rclo...@verizon.net
Subject: Whistleblower: Bradley Manning
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:31:38 -0400
Message body
Whistleblower: Bradley Manning
Manning could have done himself a
Weird, because DDT isn't banned when used for disease vector control, which
kind of scuppers your post at the get go.
Its well established that insects quickly develop resistance to DDT. So it
isn't especially effective. In some respects its counter productive. The
resistance confers other gene
Hi Alberto
A video of one man questioning Carson's conclusions doesnt support the claim
she fabricated evidence. All it does is show that some scientists disagree with
her results. Not unusual in science. Of course sceptics will argue
evironmentalism is politicised science. Given that most of t
Yep. He was.
--- Original Message ---
From: "meekerdb"
Sent: 3 August 2013 2:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The stupid legacy of another crackpot, Roger Clough
On 8/2/2013 5:27 PM, chris peck wrote:
> By the way, Michael Crichton, the man whose video you t
Hi Alby
Roger is pro-drugs in the thread below you dozy dipstick. ;)
Its the liberal who is arguing for soft headed psycotherapy. its the
pharmaceutical company vs. The lilly livered liberal script.
Get with the program you silly sausage!
--- Original Message ---
From: "Alberto G. Corona"
Se
Hello Dr. Standish
If I may play devil's advocate for a post it seems to me that the question over
duration required for an optimized system to evolve is only a minor aspect of
the argument presented in this paper.
More seriously it concerns the mechanics of such an evolution.
To use a comput
Hi Prof. Standish
Unfortunately my subscription to Athens ran out a long time ago and I don't
have access to the paper you mention.
I'm still not sure you've addressed the crux of the argument. Lets say you have
a bunch of codons that when processed by a replicating mechanism spit out a
bunc
27;re really interested.
>
> Further comments interspersed
>
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:03:36AM +, chris peck wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Prof. Standish
> >
> > Unfortunately my subscription to Athens ran out a long time ago and I don't
> &
verizon.net
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
>
> On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
> > Hi Prof. Standish
> >
> > Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a link
&g
Hi Chris and John
The paper I linked to describes a evolutionary dynamic which emphasizes
horizontal over vertical genetic transfer. I think it is described in the paper
as Lamarckian because changes to the coding mechanism can occur in their model
within a single generation of organisms rathe
I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
From: yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from posting in the e
Hi Chris d m
The papers Ive been reading regard horizontal genetic transfer as a mechanism
by which the machinery of translation, transcription and replication evolved.
As cellular organisms became more complex this mechanism gives way to vertical
genetic transfer which then dominates evolution
Hi Prof. Standish
I read your paper 'Evolution in the Multiverse' and the related discussion in
your book.
I'm not sure I really got it. My original interpretation was wrong, I think,
but went something like (by all means laugh at any howlers):
there is the plenitude which is everything that c
to their social group dynamics thus helping to lower
transactional costs perhaps.
Cheers,
-Chris D
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re:
Hi Chris
>>You assume the dog acted with a premeditated anticipation of a reward.
No I really don't. I was just being a little light hearted in that paragraph.
There is a disjunct between the reasons the dog does something and the effect
the behavior has on genes. The dog may just love childre
Hi Chris
>> Increasingly code is the result of genetic algorithms being run over many
generations of Darwinian selection -- is this programmed code? What human
hand wrote it? At how many removes?
In evolutionary computations the 'programmer' has control over the fitness
function which ultimately
>> The sad fact is that without Hitler, the West would still be a colonial
power committing human rights abuses on a unimaginable scale.
I suppose we should expect multiverse theorists to present as fact
counterfactual histories which can't be falsified.
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:49:59 -0700
Fr
>> A rapid descent into extremism can be caused by factors such as
economic desperation. However, you can also have a gradual change in
society and then people are always indioctrinated that their current
norms and values are correct.
Of course we regard our norms and values as correct. They ar
Hi Brent
>>But I don't think this is just a moral evolution. I think it is driven by
>>technology. As societies become richer they become less competitive and
>>insular and more compassionate and open.
I agree. I think trade imparticularly creates a symbiotic relationship between
people whi
Hi Craig
am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible
under strong determinism. Deterministic and random processes cannot
possibly produce desire - not because desire is special, but because it
doesn't make any sense. You
are talking about putting in a gas pedal on a bowling ball.
I th
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
