Re: Re: Re: American Intelligence

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:38 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism
> as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?


http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

"Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in
the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about
one in 20 million. Thiscompares annual risk of dying
 in a car accident of 1 in
19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at
1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other
words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck
by lightning than killed by a terrorist."

You could argue that this is because of the security apparatus that the US
has created, but that just doesn't seem credible. The security apparatus
only protects you against previous scenarios. Some idiot tried to get in a
plane with explosive shoes, so now we have to take off our shoes to board a
plane. Some tried a bottle, so now we have to throw away liquids. It's what
Bruce Schneier refers to as "movie-plot threats":

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/seventh_movie-p.html

In reality, a terrorist who is willing to die for their cause has billions
of options available. It is essentially impossible to protect yourself
against someone who is willing to die to harm you. Even more so if the
"you" is fluid: any american civilian will do.

The fact that so few people die each year on terrorist attacks strikes me
as strong evidence that there is no credible threat.

Telmo.


>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 7:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

 

Jesus, Chris, your writing fits the bill. If you're not willing to see the
country defended, because you believe it to be immoral, what else needs to
be said. 

You are full of it and are just a couch potato clown who has never been
close to a war. For what asinine reason exactly do you propose I am not
willing to see our country defended; because I do not agree with your demand
that we go off on another neocon adventure?

 

YOU're obviously not a pacifist in the true sense of being against all wars,
you just oppose US involvement, in anything, anywhere. You never stated
under what condition you'd support the US military? You write like an
afficianado of agit-prop Michael Moore, Where's My Country Dude? Which I
replied, 90 miles off the Miami shore. Take a stand that is not a mirror
image of Moore, and then you get the street cred you claim you want. 

Street cred? Man are you really that much off your rockers?  Do you think
you are in possession of anything that even remotely smells like street
cred. what street cred can there be in being a couch potato general
demanding all get on board with a blood crusade.. And you talk of street
cred. come on get real, puppy dog. 



-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Jul-2014 21:06:06 +
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com?> ] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

 

I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old Claude
Shannon method based on what the "faithful" te each other,nin Arabic and
Farsi, that they view the unraveling of the Bagdad,regime that Allah smiles
upon their holy war. In their messages to each other they encourage one
another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans. Can they seriously,
do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader is experienced in such
matters. If they possess active new "toys" that they can heap upon the
enemies of Allah. I will say its a true threat, but how much lead time will
they need to act, and upon which target is unknown. I wouldn't ignore this
or be content by telling ourselves we are so big and bad, we can never be
hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as a giant with a glass jaw.

But, if anyone disagrees with your view of what a love of America entails,
you begin claiming that they are America haters; that, quoting your colorful
Trotskyite manner of speech "fellow travelers" of the Jihadists. E.g. in bed
with America's enemies. You don't get to do this; and if you do, you
shouldn't be all that surprised really, when someone calls you a fascist. 



-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Jul-2014 18:43:53 +
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

 
 
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com?> ] 
 
Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as
a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?
 
My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is.
 
-- 
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.

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscri

RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

[spudboy100 via 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

[spudboy100 via 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

 

I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old Claude
Shannon method based on what the "faithful" te each other,nin Arabic and
Farsi, that they view the unraveling of the Bagdad,regime that Allah smiles
upon their holy war. In their messages to each other they encourage one
another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans. Can they seriously,
do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader is experienced in such
matters. If they possess active new "toys" that they can heap upon the
enemies of Allah. I will say its a true threat, but how much lead time will
they need to act, and upon which target is unknown. I wouldn't ignore this
or be content by telling ourselves we are so big and bad, we can never be
hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as a giant with a glass jaw.

But, if anyone disagrees with your view of what a love of America entails,
you begin claiming that they are America haters; that, quoting your colorful
Trotskyite manner of speech "fellow travelers" of the Jihadists. E.g. in bed
with America's enemies. You don't get to do this; and if you do, you
shouldn't be all that surprised really, when someone calls you a fascist. 



-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Jul-2014 18:43:53 +
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

 
 
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com?> ] 
 
Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as
a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?
 
My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is.
 
-- 
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.

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

Re: RE: Re: American Intelligence

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Chris, nobody in power shares my love for global war, as you put it, 
but I am very logical in noting the decline of American effectiveness, 
and prowess. The world is soon becoming, a No Country for Old Men sort 
of place, thats less free and more dangerous. A weakend US now invites 
attack, but theres nothing to be done, as individuals but wait. 
Americans are used to stumbling along until something happens, and this 
is the period we're now in. Supporting the policies and attitude of an 
insousuant, presidency, is not the way to go now, but you've expressed 
otherwise.







--
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.

RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

[spudboy100 via 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as
a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?

My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: American Intelligence

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi 
terrorism as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?



--
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.

RE: RE: RE: American Intelligence

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence

Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you cannot
budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US citizen, are
you? How will you control America if you cannot even control, influence, or
browbeat me? Just curious.

Oh... no worries mate I will live just fine... don't over-estimate your own
importance to me or anyone else... I am merely making the point that you are
a war-mongering coward. I don't expect to change you. 
Who cares if I am a US citizen or not? If I was not a US citizen would I
therefore not have the right -- for some strange reason -- to not be calling
you a coward? I am however a US citizen, sorry buddy -- see you have to deal
with me and millions of other US citizens who think people like you are off
their rockers. 
You see things in the optic of "control" -- quite telling actually,
illuminating in fact of your own psychology that you used that particular
term... you see, not everyone sees things the way you see things. Not
everyone seeks to "control" outcomes.
I, usually like to work things out, except when dealing with intolerant
individuals, such as say yourself spudboy. In such cases, since I know
a-priori that there is no working things out I will be right there in your
face and have no interest in even trying to work it out -- you don't operate
on that wavelength spudboy -- you seek to impose your world view and wish to
do so with violent means... you pine for total war A-hole, but are too much
of a coward to go do the fighting yourself.
No, there is no working anything out with individuals such as you, who
portray anyone who does not share their desire for a global conflagration as
being a traitor. Thus I do not even bother; why waste any energy. 
But I will make the point that you are a coward; and have some fun with it.
Chris



--
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.

-- 
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.

Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you 
cannot budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US 
citizen, are you? How will you control America if you cannot even 
control, influence, or browbeat me? Just curious.



--
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.

Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you 
cannot budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US 
citizen, are you? How will you control America if you cannot even 
control, influence, or browbeat me? Just curious.



--
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx]Fw:Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this

[Roger Clough]

Hi Chaotic Inflation  

More liberal so-called "science." These are the nut-jobs that 
gave us CO2 as the cause of global warming.
  
 
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


- Receiving the following content -  
From:  Chaotic Inflation  
Receiver:  
theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com,4dwor...@yahoogroups.com,theoretical_physics_bo...@yahoogroups.com,theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com
  
Time: 2013-08-05, 04:43:42 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: 
[4DWorldx]Fw:Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this 




>Really? 
> 
>Suicide[edit source | editbeta] 
>See also: Let Them Eat Prozac 
>The FDA requires all antidepressants to carry a black box warning stating that 
>antidepressants may increase the risk of suicide in people younger than 25. 
>This warning is based on statistical analyses conducted by two independent 
>groups of the FDA experts that found a 2-fold increase of the suicidal 
>ideation and behavior in children and adolescents, and 1.5-fold increase of 
>suicidality in the 18–24 age group. The suicidality was slightly decreased for 
>those older than 24, and statistically significantly lower in the 65 and older 
>group.[41][42][43] This analysis was criticized by Donald Klein, who noted 
>that suicidality, that is suicidal ideation and behavior, is not necessarily a 
>good surrogate marker for completed suicide, and it is still possible that 
>antidepressants may prevent actual suicide while increasing suicidality.[44] 
>There is less data on fluoxetine than on antidepressants as a whole. For the 
>above analysis on the antidepressant level, the FDA had to combine the results 
>of 295 trials of 11 antidepressants for psychiatric indications to obtain 
>statistically significant results. Considered separately, fluoxetine use in 
>children increased the odds of suicidality by 50%,[45] and in adults decreased 
>the odds of suicidality by approximately 30%.[42][43] Similarly, the analysis 
>conducted by the UK MHRA found a 50% increase of odds of suicide-related 
>events, not reaching statistical significance, in the children and adolescents 
>on fluoxetine as compared to the ones on placebo. According to the MHRA data, 
>for adults fluoxetine did not change the rate of self-harm and statistically 
>significantly decreased suicidal ideation by 50%.[46][47] 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Them_Eat_Prozac 
> 
> 
>David Healy is an Irish psychiatrist who is a professor in Psychological 
>Medicine at Cardiff University School of Medicine, Wales. He is also the 
>director of North Wales School of Psychological Medicine. He became the centre 
>of controversy concerning the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on 
>medicine and academia. For most of his career Healy has held the view that 
>Prozacand SSRIs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) can lead to suicide 
>and has been critical of the amount of ghost writing in the current scientific 
>literature. Healy's views led to what has been termed “The Toronto Affair” 
>which was, at its core, a debate aboutacademic freedom. 
>Contents  [hide]  
> * 1 Background and research 
> * 2 SSRIs, suicide and Healy 
> * 2.1 Does Prozac cause suicide? 
> * 2.2 Lilly’s knowledge of Prozac and suicide 
> * 2.3 Tobin vs. SmithKline 
> * 3 Healy’s healthy volunteer study 
> * 4 Toronto affair 
> * 4.1 Lecture 
> * 4.2 Aftermath 
> * 5 Ghost writing 
> * 6 Solutions 
> * 7 Editorial board membership 
> * 8 Books 
> * 9 Resources 
> * 10 See also 
> * 11 References 
> * 12 External links 
>Background and research[edit source | editbeta] 
>Healy was born in Raheny, Dublin. He completed an MD in neuroscience and 
>studied psychiatry during a clinical research fellowship at Cambridge 
>University Clinical School. In 1990, Healy became a Senior Lecturer in 
>Psychological Medicine at North Wales. In 1996 he became a Reader in 
>Psychological Medicine, then later became Professor. His current research 
>interests at Cardiff University include: cognitive functioning in affective 
>disorders and psychoses as well as circadian rhythms in affective disorders, 
>recovery in psychoses and physical health of people with mental illness. 
>He also heads the psychiatric inpatient unit at Bangor, North Wales, where 
>treatments include electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and psychiatric 
>medication.[1] Healy has authored a number of books and is an expert on the 
>history and development ofpsychopharmacology. He co-authored a book, History 
>of Convulsive Therapy with Edward Shorter. Healy’s work, particularly his 
>histories of psychopharmacology, influenced Charles Barber's book Comfortably 
>Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nat

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Richard Ruquist]

Yes. I am a scientist. You are an engineer.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> We live in mjuch different worlds, so it's hard to discuss things with you.
>
> 1) Spacetime itself is not physical.
>
> 2) Spacetime is not a slice of quantum mind (whatever that is).
>
> etc. as I frequently but ineffectively try to correct.
>
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-02-03, 09:37:42
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is
> non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up
> thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d
> universe are physical.
>
> The 4d-block mindspace (more accurate terminology) contains a
> reflection of 3d physical space as a slice of the 4d quantum mind. The
> 4th space dimension of the quantum mind is timelike in the sense that
> it contains the flux on which the arithmetic computations of all
> future possibilities are written, as well as which ones became
> physical.
>
> In MWI they all become physical- all possibilities become physical-
> which makes the 4d-block mindspace deterministic and thereby
> eliminates the need for time and consciousness. In comp, 1-p
> reintroduces time and consciousness. In string theory, time is a given
> physical dimension but otherwise rather mysterious. I suggest that
> whoever designed this mind/body duality put time in explicitly to
> allow for consciousness from the beginning rather than wait for it to
> evolve.
>
> You may call the designer, god. And I think it's a useful catchall
> word. But we should be careful not to do to theology what we do to
> global warming- that is to give it human characteristics.
>
> I come from the perspective of having practiced every major religion
> in the world. In fact I practice the major elements of all of them on
> a daily basis, what I call yanniruism. I started with protestant
> christianity, then catholic christianity, then years of atheism, then
> a decade of judaism, and finally atheistic buddhism, sufism and
> atheistic hinduism. BTW reform judaism turned out to be basically
> atheistic.
>
> Regarding who the designer is, the best answer I know of comes from
> sufism. Their ultimate god is known by a sound, "hu", and the
> objective of all sufi practices seems to be to get to hear that sound.
> It is what the blood rushing thru your brain sounds like. In
> yanniruism, Hu is the platonic source of mathematics from which form
> derives. I think there is also a sound for the father god and the son
> god, respectively "Ho" and "Ha". I get this from the Hindu mantra for
> the 3rd eye chakra, om na ma ye ho va, and from the hindu mantra for
> the heart chakra, om na ma ya weh ha. I associate the Ha god with the
> universe and the Ho god with the 4d block mindspace of the Metaverse.
> Please consider this paragraph as my bio.
>
> The Metaverse is perhaps an infinite 3D-space that includes the
> 3D-spaces of all existing universes. Each universe contains a cubic
> lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, a 3D-subspace that I
> consider to be the comp machine of the universe. It regulates all
> physical particle interactions based on inherent laws and constants
> and gives us a universal consciousness based on its incompleteness.
>
> But where do the laws and constants come from? A higher-order source
> of comp is required. Hence the function of the Metaverse.
>
> Here it is useful to introduce the total number of possible bits of
> information thought to be available in a holographic universe, 10^120,
> the so-called Lloyd limit. I accept Martin Rees suggestion that when a
> physical process requires more bits than this number,
> the process may become emergent, like consciousness is emergent due to
> incompleteness.
>
> Processes in the universe are I think incomplete because of the Lloyd
> limit of information. It's a function of the surface area of the
> universe. The 10^120 is based on the observable universe (radius 46
> BLY) but the actual holographic universe could be much larger. Penrose
> suggests an upper limit of 10^122 bits. I suggest that this is not
> enough for comp to develop physical laws, constants and matter.
>
> For that I think we need the Metaverse which even if finite has a
> superabundance of bits for computation purposes. Therefore I conclude
> that the laws and constants of physics are comp derived
> in the Metaverse and written on the 4D-block mindspace of the
> Metaverse. Indeed for

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

We live in mjuch different worlds, so it's hard to discuss things with you.

1) Spacetime itself is not physical.

2) Spacetime is not a slice of quantum mind (whatever that is).

etc. as I frequently but ineffectively try to correct.



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-03, 09:37:42
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


Dear Roger,

Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is
non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up
thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d
universe are physical.

The 4d-block mindspace (more accurate terminology) contains a
reflection of 3d physical space as a slice of the 4d quantum mind. The
4th space dimension of the quantum mind is timelike in the sense that
it contains the flux on which the arithmetic computations of all
future possibilities are written, as well as which ones became
physical.

In MWI they all become physical- all possibilities become physical-
which makes the 4d-block mindspace deterministic and thereby
eliminates the need for time and consciousness. In comp, 1-p
reintroduces time and consciousness. In string theory, time is a given
physical dimension but otherwise rather mysterious. I suggest that
whoever designed this mind/body duality put time in explicitly to
allow for consciousness from the beginning rather than wait for it to
evolve.

You may call the designer, god. And I think it's a useful catchall
word. But we should be careful not to do to theology what we do to
global warming- that is to give it human characteristics.

I come from the perspective of having practiced every major religion
in the world. In fact I practice the major elements of all of them on
a daily basis, what I call yanniruism. I started with protestant
christianity, then catholic christianity, then years of atheism, then
a decade of judaism, and finally atheistic buddhism, sufism and
atheistic hinduism. BTW reform judaism turned out to be basically
atheistic.

Regarding who the designer is, the best answer I know of comes from
sufism. Their ultimate god is known by a sound, "hu", and the
objective of all sufi practices seems to be to get to hear that sound.
It is what the blood rushing thru your brain sounds like. In
yanniruism, Hu is the platonic source of mathematics from which form
derives. I think there is also a sound for the father god and the son
god, respectively "Ho" and "Ha". I get this from the Hindu mantra for
the 3rd eye chakra, om na ma ye ho va, and from the hindu mantra for
the heart chakra, om na ma ya weh ha. I associate the Ha god with the
universe and the Ho god with the 4d block mindspace of the Metaverse.
Please consider this paragraph as my bio.

The Metaverse is perhaps an infinite 3D-space that includes the
3D-spaces of all existing universes. Each universe contains a cubic
lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, a 3D-subspace that I
consider to be the comp machine of the universe. It regulates all
physical particle interactions based on inherent laws and constants
and gives us a universal consciousness based on its incompleteness.

But where do the laws and constants come from? A higher-order source
of comp is required. Hence the function of the Metaverse.

Here it is useful to introduce the total number of possible bits of
information thought to be available in a holographic universe, 10^120,
the so-called Lloyd limit. I accept Martin Rees suggestion that when a
physical process requires more bits than this number,
the process may become emergent, like consciousness is emergent due to
incompleteness.

Processes in the universe are I think incomplete because of the Lloyd
limit of information. It's a function of the surface area of the
universe. The 10^120 is based on the observable universe (radius 46
BLY) but the actual holographic universe could be much larger. Penrose
suggests an upper limit of 10^122 bits. I suggest that this is not
enough for comp to develop physical laws, constants and matter.

For that I think we need the Metaverse which even if finite has a
superabundance of bits for computation purposes. Therefore I conclude
that the laws and constants of physics are comp derived
in the Metaverse and written on the 4D-block mindspace of the
Metaverse. Indeed for comp to control how each universe inflates by
way of flux compactification, there must be a source of comp outside
the universe.

Using the old adage that what's up is down, but also from the
viewpoint of Metaverse/universe compatibility, I conjecture that the
Metaverse also contains a 4D-spacetime, separate from the universe, at
least outside of the universe, plus a 3D-subspace containing most
likely a cubic lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, the
ultimate comp machine.

However, because of the size and nearly infinite compl

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Richard Ruquist]

Straw dog there is no mention of a separation

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Dear Roger,
>>
>> Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is
>> non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up
>> thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d
>> universe are physical.
>
>
> Except that my non-physical intentions cause my physical matter to exert
> energy.  If the non-physical and physical can directly influence each other,
> can the separation really be said to be complete? At the very least private
> experience should be trans-physical or tele-physical as non-physical doesn't
> leave any room for interaction.
>
> Of course, I see everything as physical, with time-based experience being
> private physics and the addition of space-based realism being public
> physics.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Alberto G. Corona]

Depend on what you mean by physical. For me , the block universes is a
 manifold, a pure mathematical structure which may not contain the minds
but somehow contain their history and determine their lawful and
communicable experiences.  The physical world, what we see, with his
causalities, his time, his 3d space, his macroscopical laws, is a product
of the mind when he contemplate the mathematical structure from inside.


2013/2/3 Roger Clough 

>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
> My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe,
> so it does not include the world of mind.
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-02-02, 14:14:51
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>
>   In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes
> everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind
> (1p)
>
> In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above
> in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there
> is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection
> and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as
> causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful
> fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are
> correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons.
>
> I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time
> qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind,
> creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he
> would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the
> end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena
> that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not
> exist (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it).
>
>
> 2013/2/2 Roger Clough 
>
>>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>>  Does your version of mind actually do anything ?
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-02-02, 04:43:54
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>
>>   I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way.
>> The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D
>> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the
>> mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are
>> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure
>> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce
>> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of
>> brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as
>> time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of
>> natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just
>> trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and
>> electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until
>> the end of the line of life)
>>
>> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which
>> includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because
>> everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the
>> block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the
>> world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws
>> and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection
>> of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and
>> coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared
>> experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on
>> these laws and these experiences.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/1/31 Roger Clough 
>>
>>>  Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>  The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it,
>>> for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or
>>> mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical.
>>>
>>>  - Receiving the following content -
>>> *From:* Bruno Marchal 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:45:53
>>> *Subject:* Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>>
>>>On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> > A block universe does not allow fo

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> Dear Roger, 
>
> Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is 
> non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up 
> thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d 
> universe are physical.  
>

Except that my non-physical intentions cause my physical matter to exert 
energy.  If the non-physical and physical can directly influence each 
other, can the separation really be said to be complete? At the very least 
private experience should be trans-physical or tele-physical as 
non-physical doesn't leave any room for interaction.

Of course, I see everything as physical, with time-based experience being 
private physics and the addition of space-based realism being public 
physics.

Craig

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Richard Ruquist]

articles that could
control both physical and psychological worlds. A fellow on the
Mind/brain list has such a theory but without my metaphysical
trimmings.

I want to talk about the implication of a hologaphic universe on the
speed of comp processing and in turn on quantum interpetations,
but I think enough said for now. I wonder if any will even read this
far. Thanks for the opportunity and stimulus to present this system
analysis. I really appreciate being on this list.

Richard



On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> The 4 dimensional or even the 11 dimensional universe
> cannot contain mind, because mind is nonphysical and
> they are physical. So the block universe is a waste of time.
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-02-03, 07:19:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>
> Roger,
>
> I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology)
> is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all
> possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics
> as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past.
> Richard
>
> PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived
> from comp.
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>>
>> My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe,
>> so it does not include the world of mind.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Alberto G. Corona
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>
>> In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes
>> everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind
>> (1p)
>>
>> In the timeless view, there is no causality buy　casualty　 Viewed from
>> above
>> in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there
>> is
>> a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and
>> 　voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as
>> causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful
>> fashion.
>> But viewing the block universe from above, 　simply they are correlations.
>> There is no causality but local phenomenons.
>>
>> I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time
>> qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind,
>> creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he
>> would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at
>> the
>> end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena
>> that
>> we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist
>> (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it).
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/2 Roger Clough 
>>>
>>> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>>>
>>> Does your version of mind actually do anything ?
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Alberto G. Corona
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>>
>>> I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The
>>> objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D
>>> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the
>>> mind,
>>> in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are
>>> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure
>>> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that
>>> produce
>>> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of
>>> brains
>>> along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time.
>>> these
>>> brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural
>>> selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories
>>> where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical
>>> signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end
>>> of
>>> the line of life)
>>>
>>> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which
>>> includes not only our　thoughs　but everithing we see around us, because
>>> ev

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

The 4 dimensional or even the 11 dimensional universe
cannot contain mind, because mind is nonphysical and
they are physical. So the block universe is a waste of time.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-03, 07:19:51
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


Roger,

I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology)
is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all
possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics
as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past.
Richard

PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived
from comp.

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
> My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe,
> so it does not include the world of mind.
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Alberto G. Corona
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>
> In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes
> everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind
> (1p)
>
> In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty  Viewed from above
> in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is
> a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and
>  voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as
> causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion.
> But viewing the block universe from above,  simply they are correlations.
> There is no causality but local phenomenons.
>
> I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time
> qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind,
> creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he
> would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the
> end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that
> we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist
> (because we don'nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it).
>
>
> 2013/2/2 Roger Clough 
>>
>> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>>
>> Does your version of mind actually do anything ?
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Alberto G. Corona
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54
>> Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>
>> I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The
>> objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D
>> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind,
>> in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are
>> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure
>> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce
>> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains
>> along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these
>> brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural
>> selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories
>> where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical
>> signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of
>> the line of life)
>>
>> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which
>> includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because
>> everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the
>> block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the
>> world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws
>> and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection
>> of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and
>> coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared
>> experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on
>> these laws and these experiences.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/1/31 Roger Clough 
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>> The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it,
>>> for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or
>>> mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical.
>>>
>>>
>>> - R

Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger,

I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology)
is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all
possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics
as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past.
Richard

PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived
from comp.

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
> My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe,
> so it does not include the world of mind.
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Alberto G. Corona
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>
> In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes
> everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind
> (1p)
>
> In the timeless view, there is no causality buy　casualty　 Viewed from above
> in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is
> a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and
> 　voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as
> causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion.
> But viewing the block universe from above, 　simply they are correlations.
> There is no causality but local phenomenons.
>
> I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time
> qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind,
> creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he
> would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the
> end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that
> we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist
> (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it).
>
>
> 2013/2/2 Roger Clough 
>>
>> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>>
>> Does your version of mind actually do anything ?
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Alberto G. Corona
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54
>> Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>
>> I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The
>> objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D
>> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind,
>> in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are
>> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure
>> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce
>> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains
>> along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these
>> brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural
>> selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories
>> where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical
>> signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of
>> the line of life)
>>
>> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which
>> includes not only our　thoughs　but everithing we see around us, because
>> everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the
>> block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the
>> world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws
>> and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection
>> of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and
>> coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared
>> experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on
>> these laws and these experiences.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/1/31 Roger Clough 
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>> The block universe is the physical universe.　So we are not part of it,
>>> for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical.　Or
>>> mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Bruno Marchal
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53
>>> Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>>
>>> On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> > A block universe does not allow for consciousness.
>>

Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe,
so it does not include the world of mind.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes 
everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) 


In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty  Viewed from above in 
a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a 
identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and  
voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations 
when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing 
the block universe from above,  simply they are correlations. There is no 
causality but local phenomenons. 


I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time 
qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, 
creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he 
would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end 
of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we 
have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist 
(because we don'nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it).



2013/2/2 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
Does your version of mind actually do anything ?
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54
Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The 
objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D 
geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in 
the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in 
the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are 
infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in 
coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that 
are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are 
localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their 
lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of 
particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally 
maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) 


But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which 
includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because 
everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the 
block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the 
world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and 
rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of 
boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and 
coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared 
experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these 
laws and these experiences.







2013/1/31 Roger Clough 

Hi Bruno Marchal 
 
The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it,
for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or
mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53
Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> A block universe does not allow for consciousness.

With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes.

There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the 
mindscape as seen from inside.



> The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think,
> means that our universe is not completely blocked,

 From inside.





> although the deviations from "block" may be minor
> and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point.

The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with 
comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here 
and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega 
points.

By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 
1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.).

Bruno





> Richard.
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb  
> wrote:
>> Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between 
>> what is
>> provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is 
>> a place
>> where COMP could contri

Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Alberto G. Corona]

In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes
everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind
(1p)

In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty  Viewed from above
in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there
is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection
and  voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as
causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful
fashion. But viewing the block universe from above,  simply they are
correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons.

I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time
qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind,
creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he
would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the
end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena
that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not
exist (because we don´nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it).


2013/2/2 Roger Clough 

>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
> Does your version of mind actually do anything ?
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-02-02, 04:43:54
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>
>   I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way.
> The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D
> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the
> mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are
> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure
> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce
> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of
> brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as
> time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of
> natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just
> trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and
> electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until
> the end of the line of life)
>
> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which
> includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because
> everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the
> block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the
> world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws
> and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection
> of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and
> coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared
> experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on
> these laws and these experiences.
>
>
>
>
> 2013/1/31 Roger Clough 
>
>>  Hi Bruno Marchal
>>  The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it,
>> for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or
>> mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical.
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Bruno Marchal 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:45:53
>> *Subject:* Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
>>
>>On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> > A block universe does not allow for consciousness.
>>
>> With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes.
>>
>> There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the
>> mindscape as seen from inside.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think,
>> > means that our universe is not completely blocked,
>>
>> From inside.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > although the deviations from "block" may be minor
>> > and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point.
>>
>> The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with
>> comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here
>> and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega
>> points.
>>
>> By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p,
>> 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Richard.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb 
>> > >
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between
>> >> what is
>> >> provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is
>> >> a place
>> >> where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM.
>> >>
>> >> Brent
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Lessons from the Block Universe
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ken Wharton
>> >> Department of Physics and Astronomy
>> >> San Jos State Un

Re: Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 9:10:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Telmo Menezes 
>  
> By "material" I mean physical. Decartes similarly defines 
> the physical as being extended in space. Mathematics
> is not extended in space, so is nonphysical. A Turing machine
> is conceived of as having a tape with holes in it,
> but it can be used mathematically without physically constructing it.
>  
> An actual computer consists of hardware, which is physical,
> and software, which may be physical in terms of charges,
> but ultimately those charges represent binary nuymbers, and
> numbers are nonphysical. 
>

I agree that mathematics is not extended in space, but rather, like all 
things not extended, is intended. Mathematics is an intention to reason 
quantitatively, and quantitative reasoning is an internalized model of 
spatially extended qualities: persistent, passive entities which can be 
grouped or divided: rigid bodies. Digits.

So yes, numbers are not extended, but they are intended to represent what 
is extended.

Craig 

>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Telmo Menezes  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-02-02, 08:59:44
> *Subject:* Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
>
>   Hi Roger, 
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough 
> > wrote:
>
>  Hi Telmo Menezes 
>  Agreed, computers can be, or at least seem to be,
> intelligent, but they are slaves to mathematical codes,
> which are not material. A turing machine is not material, it is an 
> idea.
>
>
> Ok but that depends on how you define "material". Those mathematical codes 
> are what I mean by material. F = mA is (an approximation) of part of what I 
> mean by material. You can build and approximation of a turing machine (a 
> finite one) with stuff you can touch and you can ever use it as a doorstop.
>  
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Telmo Menezes  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-02-02, 06:05:53
> *Subject:* Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
>  
>   Hi Roger, 
>
> I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of 
> physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where we're 
> surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the best human 
> chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face recognition, automatic stock 
> traders that are better at it than any human being and so on and so on.
>
> Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do, people 
> say "oh right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer will never be 
> able to do X". And then they do. And then people say the same thing. It's 
> just a bias we have, a need to feel special.
>
> WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough 
> > wrote:
>
>  Hi socr...@bezeqint.net  and Craig, and all,
>  How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
> How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
> How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
>  IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
>  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
>  
> One is obliged to admit that *perception* and what depends upon it is 
> *inexplicable 
> on mechanical principles*, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining 
> that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to 
> sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while 
> retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like 
> into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find 
> only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a 
> perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or 
> in the machine, that one must look for perception.
>
> Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon 
> entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the 
> relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or 
> consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter 
> how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals 
> that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. 
> Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the 
> purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena 
> of consciousness.
>
> In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of 
> perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism 
> cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the *New 
> System of Nature* (1695), the second from the *Reply to Bayle* (1702), 
> are revealing in this regard:
>
> Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which 
> corresponds to what is called the *I* in us; such a thing could not occur 
> in

Re: Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes 

By "material" I mean physical. Decartes similarly defines 
the physical as being extended in space. Mathematics
is not extended in space, so is nonphysical. A Turing machine
is conceived of as having a tape with holes in it,
but it can be used mathematically without physically constructing it.

An actual computer consists of hardware, which is physical,
and software, which may be physical in terms of charges,
but ultimately those charges represent binary nuymbers, and
numbers are nonphysical. 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-02, 08:59:44
Subject: Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?


Hi Roger,





On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
Agreed, computers can be, or at least seem to be,
intelligent,  but they are slaves to mathematical codes,
which are not material.   A turing machine is not material, it is an 
idea.


Ok but that depends on how you define "material". Those mathematical codes are 
what I mean by material. F = mA is (an approximation)  of part of what I mean 
by material. You can build and approximation of a turing machine (a finite one) 
with stuff you can touch and you can ever use it as a doorstop.
 
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-02, 06:05:53
Subject: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?


Hi Roger, 


I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of 
physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where we're 
surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the best human chess 
player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face recognition, automatic stock traders 
that are better at it than any human being and so on and so on.


Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do, people say "oh 
right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer will never be able to do 
X". And then they do. And then people say the same thing. It's just a bias we 
have, a need to feel special.


WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science.



On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net and Craig, and all,
 
How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
 
IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is 
inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In 
imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, 
to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while 
retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into 
a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only 
parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. 
Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, 
that one must look for perception.
Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering 
it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations 
they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, 
can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner 
workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being 
observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must 
be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of 
materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of 
perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism 
cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of 
Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this 
regard:
Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which 
corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in 
artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may 
be. 
But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which 
compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the 
Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness 
which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This 
perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness 
must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An 
aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, 
capable of being the subject o

Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Does your version of mind actually do anything ?

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54
Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The 
objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D 
geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in 
the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in 
the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are 
infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in 
coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that 
are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are 
localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their 
lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of 
particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally 
maintained constant (until the end of the line of life)


But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which 
includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because 
everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the 
block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the 
world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and 
rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of 
boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and 
coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared 
experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these 
laws and these experiences.







2013/1/31 Roger Clough 

Hi Bruno Marchal 
 
The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it,
for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or
mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53
Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> A block universe does not allow for consciousness.

With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes.

There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the 
mindscape as seen from inside.



> The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think,
> means that our universe is not completely blocked,

 From inside.





> although the deviations from "block" may be minor
> and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point.

The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with 
comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here 
and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega 
points.

By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 
1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.).

Bruno





> Richard.
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb  
> wrote:
>> Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between 
>> what is
>> provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is 
>> a place
>> where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lessons from the Block Universe
>>
>>
>> Ken Wharton
>> Department of Physics and Astronomy

>> San Jos State University

>>
>>
>>
>> http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9
>>
>>
>> In Liouville mechanics, states of incomplete
>> knowledge exhibit phenomena analogous to those exhibited
>> by pure quantum states. Among these are the existence
>> of a no-cloning theorem for such states [21, 23],
>> the impossibility of discriminating such states with certainty
>> [21, 24], the lack of exponential divergence of such
>> states (in the space of epistemic states) under chaotic
>> evolution [25], and, for correlated states, many of the
>> features of entanglement [26]. On the other hand, states
>> of complete knowledge do not exhibit these phenomena.
>> This suggests that one would obtain a better analogy
>> with quantum theory if states of complete knowledge
>> were somehow impossible to achieve, that is, if somehow
>> maximal knowledge was always incomplete knowledge
>> [21, 22, 27]. This idea is borne out by the results
>> of this paper. In fact, the toy theory suggests that the
>> restriction on knowledge should take a particular form,

>> namely, that one? knowledge be quantitatively equal to
>> one? ignorance in a state of maximal knowledge.

>>
>> It is important to bear in mind that one cannot derive
>> quantum theory from the toy theory, nor from any
>> simple modification thereof. The problem is that the
>> toy theory is a theory of incomplete knowled

Re: Re: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

[Roger Clough]

Hi Russell Standish 

Fine. 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Russell Standish 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-01, 16:54:48
Subject: Re: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list


On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:30:39AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
> 
> Nothing human is off-topic to me.
> Which suggests that materialism and brain science are off-topic.

By contrast, discussion of materialism and neuroscience is definitely
on-topic, and has often been discussed in this forum. One cannot avoid
the elephant in the room that any TOE needs to address consciousness
in some form or other.

But it does not need to address social policy issues, fo example.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Hateful

[Terren Suydam]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi Terren Suydam
>
> Faith is a gift we are unworthy of.
>

Whatever floats your boat.

Terren


>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Terren Suydam 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 14:21:17
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Hateful
>
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> What else is it?
>
> If you say it is the arbiter of morality, then that too can be framed in
> terms of group persistence.
>
> If you're talking about spirituality, whatever one means by that, it has
> never seemed the case to me that religion is *required* for one to realize
> one's spirituality.
>
> Terren
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>>  Hi Terren Suydam
>>  Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true,
>> but that's not all it is.
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Terren Suydam 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 10:22:37
>> *Subject:* Re: Hateful
>>
>>   Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily
>> successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any
>> one person's燤achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other
>> cultural institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.營
>> also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in
>> roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in
>> itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics.
>>
>> As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it
>> promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the
>> collective more likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that
>> filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for that idea.
>>
>> Terren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>> This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited
>>> or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and
>>> other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally
>>> good stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
>>> to give and not to count the cost;
>>> to fight and not to heed the wounds;
>>> to till, and not to seek for rest;
>>> to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
>>> save that of knowing we do thy will.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amen.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do
>>> people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards?
>>> I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and
>>> no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less
>>> obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants
>>> for us.
>>>
>>> All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God
>>> really into all that? I don't believe it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kim Jones
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 
>> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
>> leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org
>> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> 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.goog

Re: Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Mikes 

It didn't feel good.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 17:45:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it 
feel good to mention it as "far left"? My experience is balanced, I was a 
victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 
years of active life on 3 continents. 
Please try to understand what you read.
John Mikes


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi John Mikes 
 
That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
in the past only count against us.  
 
Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
likely to deter them. 
 
 
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
Subject: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a 
"Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
materials) and labor-power abroad.  
Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly 
leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations 
for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli 
PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on 
the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with 
infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
JM



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi John Mikes 
 
You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
Subject: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Roger - 
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for 
the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to 
general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
John Mikes


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

The "unfairness" argument?or allowing women into the infantry
is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the 
infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
advancement.
This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
after 18 months because it didn't work. 
The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
"will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
military ?"
-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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.
 
 


DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org
<%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send 

Re: Re: Re: Hateful

[Roger Clough]

Hi Terren Suydam 

Faith is a gift we are unworthy of.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Terren Suydam 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 14:21:17
Subject: Re: Re: Hateful




Hi Roger,


What else is it?  


If you say it is the arbiter of morality, then that too can be framed in terms 
of group persistence.


If you're talking about spirituality, whatever one means by that, it has never 
seemed the case to me that religion is *required* for one to realize one's 
spirituality.


Terren


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi Terren Suydam 
 
Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true,
but that's not all it is.
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Terren Suydam 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 10:22:37
Subject: Re: Hateful


Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily 
successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one 
person's?achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other cultural 
institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.? also tend to 
see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same way 
that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human 
genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics. 


As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote 
values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more 
likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that 
it is a pretty good fit for that idea. 


Terren








On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones  wrote:

This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or 
sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other 
institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff.



Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to till, and not to seek for rest;
to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
save that of knowing we do thy will.


Amen.


But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people 
assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards?
I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one 
need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, 
less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us.

All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into 
all that? I don't believe it.



Kim Jones


--
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.





-- 
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.
 
 


DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org
<%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
-- 
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.
 
 



-- 
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.
 
 

-- 
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 gr

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:45:12 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
>
> Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did 
> it feel good to mention it as "far left"? My experience is balanced, I was 
> a victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 
> 75 years of active life on 3 continents. 
> Please try to understand what you read.
> John Mikes
>

Far Left = Hitler, Robert Redford, libraries, Pol Pot, people who eat 
vegetables, Barack Obama, the Bubonic Plague, things that aren't good, dark 
things, women.

Left = Far Left

Progressive = Far Left

Moderate = Far Left

Far Right = Does not exist

Conservative = Heroes, hard workers, patriots, businessmen, wealthy old 
people, anti-communists, God, Jesus.



> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough 
> > wrote:
>
>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>  
>> That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
>> induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
>> defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
>> in the past only count against us.  
>>  
>> Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
>> but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
>> so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
>> likely to deter them. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* John Mikes  
>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>> *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>  
>>  Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe 
>> a "Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
>> 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
>> Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
>> materials) and labor-power abroad. 
>> Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), 
>> allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when 
>> preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington 
>> visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
>> And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles 
>> away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
>> One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
>> semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
>> Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY 
>> with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
>> IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
>> JM
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>>  You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>>   
>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* John Mikes  
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>>
>>>   Roger - 
>>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of 
>>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without 
>>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
>>> John Mikes
>>>
>>>  On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough 
>>> 
>>> > wrote:
>>>
  The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
 is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
 I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the 
  infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
 at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
 advancement.
  This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
 after 18 months because it didn't work. 
  The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
 "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
 military ?"
   
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "Everything List" group.
 To post to this group, send email to 
 everyth...@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@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.



>>>  -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>>> Visit this group a

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

[John Mikes]

Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it
feel good to mention it as "far left"? My experience is balanced, I was a
victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75
years of active life on 3 continents.
Please try to understand what you read.
John Mikes

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi John Mikes
>
> That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength
> induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on
> defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made
> in the past only count against us.
>
> Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
> but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
> so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
> likely to deter them.
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* John Mikes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
> *Subject:* Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
>  Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe
> a "Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the
> 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included.
> Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw
> materials) and labor-power abroad.
> Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?),
> allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when
> preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington
> visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time.
> And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away
> on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil.
> One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a
> semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan.
> Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY
> with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
> IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
> JM
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
>>  Hi John Mikes
>>  You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry
>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* John Mikes 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>
>>   Roger -
>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of
>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without
>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful.
>> John Mikes
>>
>>  On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>>  The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
>>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably
>>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the
>>>  infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men"
>>> at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their
>>> advancement.
>>>  This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>>> after 18 months because it didn't work.
>>>  The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the
>>> military ?"
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@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.
>>
>>
>> 
>> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
>> leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org
>> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>>
>> --
>> 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.c

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi John Mikes 
>  
> That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
> induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
> defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
> in the past only count against us.  
>

Maybe our enemies want to just attack us enough for us to keep pouring more 
money into the military, thereby diverting the entire budget away from 
services and institutions which hold the society together, and dumping it 
into a bottomless toilet of corrupt defense contractors and debt service.

It's a funny thing: When there's peace and prosperity - A good time to 
increase the military for a strong defense. When there's war and financial 
trouble - A good time to increase the military because we can't afford not 
to.

Since our military is larger than the next 12 or 13 countries combined 
(nearly all of whom are allies) - the question is, will there ever be a 
time when expanding the military should not be a top priority for the US?

Craig

 
> Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
> but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
> so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
> likely to deter them. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* John Mikes  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
> *Subject:* Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>
>  Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe 
> a "Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
> 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
> Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
> materials) and labor-power abroad. 
> Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), 
> allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when 
> preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington 
> visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
> And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away 
> on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
> One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
> semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
> Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY 
> with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
> IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
> JM
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough 
> > wrote:
>
>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>  You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I
>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>   
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* John Mikes  
>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>
>>   Roger - 
>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of 
>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without 
>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
>> John Mikes
>>
>>  On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>  The "unfairness" argument�or allowing women into the infantry
>>> is emotionally based, thus�ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
>>> I fell for it. �he argument is that�ot allowing women into the 
>>>  infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
>>> at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
>>> advancement.
>>>  This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>>> after 18 months because it didn't work. 
>>>  The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
>>> military ?"
>>>   
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/o

Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

Consciousness is not a force that might do things.
It is what allows us to perceive and know things.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-29, 20:39:40
Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>> A block universe does not allow for consciousness.
>> The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think,
>> means that our universe is not completely blocked,
>> although the deviations from "block" may be minor
>> and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point.
>
> Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious.
>
It is to me. I think it is very unlikely that the motions and
evolutions of star and galaxies and in my model even universes could
be strongly affected by biological consciousness



> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Facts vs values

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Not to worry.

Since, along with Leibniz (see his Theodicy) I believe that everything
is caused (sometimes unpreferably) by God, then faith is a gift, and, 
contrary to Billy Graham, cannot be invoked by man. You cannot
decide to choose for Christ. You can however turn it down.

To say it briefly, I believe that religion is not about man,
it's about God. 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 06:23:15
Subject: Re: Re: Facts vs values







2013/1/30 Roger Clough 

Hi Bruno Marchal,
?
When I read the Bible, it is a subjective act,
but not my own subjective act alonw, it is 
contained in the subjectivity of the Holy Spirit.
?


I? afraid that when the bible and the Holy Spirit is put away by more radical 
movements of a tradition of protest, then there remains only subjectivity, that 
is slave of the passions, as Luther said. Then we see as good what 
experientially it has been known that is bad during?housand?ears of history. If 
one add that the only remaining access to the experience of other human beings: 
History, literature, philosophy and all other humanities are being eradicacated 
from the school curricula, then we have completed the path to perfect 
self-branded subjectivism, for the glory and power of a nanny state ruled by 
passion satisfaction demagogy that manage at will its herd of free idiots.
?
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 06:36:10
Subject: Re: Facts vs values




On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote:


?
I have no conflict being a scientist when I deal with science, and being
??a Christian when I deal with the Bible. 


Of course we differ on this. For me "science" does not exist, only scientific 
attitude. And I consider that the scientific attitude is even more important 
with respect to faith than to observation, but this of course has been 
jeopardize when we have been imposed the argument per authority in the 
spiritual field, and I think this explain intolerance, religion wars, and a lot 
of unecessary suffering.






?
Or with science when I deal with science and with aesthetics when 
??I visit an art museam. Or go to a concert.
?
Or with being a scientist when I deal?ith the Big Bang
??and being a Christian when I read Genesis. Two different
??accounts, from two different realms,?f the same event.
?
Science has its own realm of validity in the realm of facts,
??but has no place -not even a foothold-- in the world of values.


I agree with this, but values can add to science, not contradict it, or it 
leads to bad faith and authorianism.
same for art: it extends science but does not oppose to it.?






?
The difference between a fool and a wise man is in knowing the difference.


I am not sure. If you separate science from religion, you attract the 
superstition and the wishful thinking. It might have a role, but that can be 
explained. And then, for many that difference will make science into a 
pseudo-religion. Ideal science is just ideal honesty/modesty.


Bruno






?
- Roger Clough


-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
?
?



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






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






-- 
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?hl=en.
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Mikes 

That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
in the past only count against us.  

Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
likely to deter them. 




- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
Subject: Re: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a 
"Superior firepower" brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
materials) and labor-power abroad. 
Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly 
leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations 
for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli 
PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on 
the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with 
infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
JM



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi John Mikes 
 
You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
Subject: Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry


Roger - 
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for 
the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to 
general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
John Mikes


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

The "unfairness" argument?or allowing women into the infantry
is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the 
infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
advancement.
This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
after 18 months because it didn't work. 
The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
"will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
military ?"
-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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.
 
 


DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org
<%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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.
 
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013  Roger Clough  wrote:

> the ancient jews in the BC era knew nothing
>

Not far from the truth.

> of the ancient myths,
>

If they knew anything at all it was useless crap like that.

> “There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world
> until the beginning of the 2nd century,
>

But Mithra was certainly known in the non-Roman world long before then and
the Jews weren't conquered by Rome until 63 BC.

> but, from the year AD 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory
> inscriptions to Mithra.
>

And the oldest written gospels come from the fourth century.

> Osiris was born of the Egyptian sky-goddess Nut-Meri and the god Seb
> (Geb). Nut-Meri was not a virgin
>

Who cares, I was talking about the God Horus not His dad; the God Osiris
was the father of the God Horus.

>> His birth was attended by three wise men.
>

I did not write that!

   John K Clark

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, January 25, 2013 1:59:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi John Clark 
>  
> That's all made-up stuff put on the web by people such as you.
>

Not by the worldwide liberal conspiracy?
 

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 

No,  I let science be science and religion be religion.
Different languages, different meanings. You're confusing the two.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-25, 11:29:01
Subject: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013? Roger Clough  wrote:


> Other than Luther's ancient views on astronomy,

?
How about Luther's views on geology? How about his view that the Earth was less 
than six thousand years old, do you agree with that?


>? as a modern Lutheran 

Which apparently is nearly identical to a medieval Lutheran. 


> I agree with everything Luther said


I do too, Luther gave a good explanation of why it is that if you want to be a 
good Christian you've got to be stupid.
?

> Faith opens the inner eye, which science wants to blind.


And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you. 


> So it is said that with faith, you have everything, without faith you have 
> nothing. 


And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you. 


> true stupidity is to rely only on reason. 


I rest my case.

? John K Clark 

?



-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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.

Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:52:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
>  
>  
> An article in the American Journal of 
> Psychiatryin 
> 2004 suggested that atheists might have a higher suicide rate than 
> theists.[10]According
>  to William 
> Bainbridge , 
> atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is 
> also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial 
> nations.[11]Extended
>  length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to 
> higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and 
> self-transcendence.[12]Some
>  studies state that in developed 
> countries , health, life 
> expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical 
> predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with 
> higher proportions of 
> believers.[13]
> [14]Multiple
>  methodological problems have been identified with cross-national 
> assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine 
> conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed 
> democracies. 
> [15]
> "
>
>  
>
> - wikipedia
>
Maybe it's because atheists have higher intelligence on average, and higher 
intelligence is associated with higher suicide rates in some studies. It's 
not that hard to see why. If you are smart enough to see through religion, 
you are smart enough to see through the spectacle that passes for life on 
this planet. Without the fear of burning in hell forever, a lot of people 
would probably be more likely to end their lives.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs
 

>  - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-23, 12:48:50
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
>
>  
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html
>
> "Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to 
> kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across 
> Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the 
> voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, 
> telling him to kill prostitutes. "
>
> http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/
>
> "Albert Fish 1870 � 1936.  Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He 
> apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but 
> sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate 
> his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God 
> telling him to kill children. "
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html
>
> "Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in 
> Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save 
> people from an alien attack."
>
> http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php
>
> "On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He 
> was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By 
> mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that 
> followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys 
> and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, 
> Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican 
> youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had 
> previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless 
> youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. "
>
>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>
>> The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. 
>>
>
> Period?
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html
>
> "Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to 
> kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across 
> Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the 
> voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, 
> telling him to kill prostitutes. "
>
> http://listdom.wordpress.

Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:46:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>  
> Period, meaning that's it. 
>

I know what you meant by period. If you noticed, I attached a list of 
serial killers who followed what they understood to be the voice of God.

The implication is that if you disable your own critical thinking and open 
your will to whatever claims to be God in your psyche, then don't be 
surprised if you end up murdering and eating people, as so many have found 
out and continue to find out. Ah, but they're probably Liberals, eh? The 
Godless Nazi-Hippies that do whatever God says.

Craig
 

>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-23, 12:48:50
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
>
>  
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html
>
> "Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to 
> kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across 
> Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the 
> voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, 
> telling him to kill prostitutes. "
>
> http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/
>
> "Albert Fish 1870 � 1936.  Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He 
> apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but 
> sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate 
> his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God 
> telling him to kill children. "
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html
>
> "Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in 
> Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save 
> people from an alien attack."
>
> http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php
>
> "On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He 
> was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By 
> mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that 
> followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys 
> and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, 
> Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican 
> youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had 
> previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless 
> youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. "
>
>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>
>> The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. 
>>
>
> Period?
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html
>
> "Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to 
> kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across 
> Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the 
> voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, 
> telling him to kill prostitutes. "
>
> http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/
>
> "Albert Fish 1870 � 1936.  Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He 
> apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but 
> sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate 
> his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God 
> telling him to kill children. "
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html
>
> "Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in 
> Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save 
> people from an alien attack."
>
> http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php
>
> "On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He 
> was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By 
> mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that 
> followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys 
> and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, 
> Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican 
> youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had 
> previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless 
> youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. " 
>
> There are many, many more of course...
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https

Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:34:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> An anthropic God is the only one we can make sense of.
>

By 'we', you mean 'you'. You are wrong over 1.5 billion times even if we 
just count the Buddhist 'we' in Asia alone.

You do know that Buddha isn't the 'God' of Buddhism, right? How about 
Taoism or Confucianism? Shinto? Wicca?

Craig

>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-23, 09:22:38
> *Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 
> STEPS.
>
>  
>
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi John Clark 
>>  
>> From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very 
>> very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. 
>>
>
> Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking 
> beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my 
> friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services 
> bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a 
> monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour 
> monologue in Hebrew.
>
> I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and 
> seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous 
> damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward 
> crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known 
> too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives 
> derailed by crystal.
>
> Craig
>
>
>  
>
>>   
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* John Clark 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-22, 13:23:37
>> *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
>>
>>  On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>   >> The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear 
 that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned 
 alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see 
 in the night sky were other suns very very far away. 

>>>
>>> >The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of 
>>> Theology
>>>
>>
>> In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology 
>> it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were 
>> just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. 
>>
>>  >than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. 
>>>
>>
>> Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute.
>>
>>  >> Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better 
 than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. 

>>>  
>>> > Religion does the same thing. 
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>  > The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from 
>>> simplicity
>>>
>>
>> God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are. 
>>
>>  > Ron Popeil is not a theologian. 
>>>
>>
>> True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he 
>> sells on TV actually exists.
>>
>>   >> What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing 
 mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. 

>>>
>>> > Not really.
>>>
>>
>> Yes really.
>>
>>  > Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but 
>> they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing 
>> about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why 
>> neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have 
>> found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle 
>> accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years 
>> (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been 
>> surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were 
>> disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be 
>> the last of these very expensive machines for a century.
>>
>> ohn K Clark
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li.

Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:32:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> OK,  you can see that in two current junk science cults:
>  
> (a) materialism
>  
> (b) climate change
>


What I can see is that your responses seem to be generated by this logic 
tree:

Do I Understand It?

Yes = Leibniz
No = God

Do I Like It?

Yes = Rational
No = Blame Liberals (aka Nazi-Communist Jews who advocate a Welfare-Police 
state)

Craig

>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-23, 09:15:40
> *Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 
> STEPS.
>
>  
>
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig,
>>  
>> What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ?
>>
>
> A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, 
> decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and 
> corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects.
>
> Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by 
> rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. 
> Intellectual totalitarianism.
>
> Craig
>
>>   
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Bruno Marchal 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27
>> *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
>>
>>  
>>  On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
>> It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach 
>> are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a 
>> fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has 
>> displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world.  
>>
>>
>> This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. 
>> Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can 
>> give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some 
>> theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot 
>> eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a 
>> pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was 
>> replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system 
>> was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain 
>> chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the 
>> divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the 
>> wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been 
>> alleviated...
>>
>>
>> OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific 
>> attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned 
>> theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make 
>> "primary matter" the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when 
>> physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, 
>> notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and 
>> imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. 
>> This is just deeply not scientific.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
> 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/-/RxABwuXe31MJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/btCFEZ0P0pMJ.
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: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 


An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that 
atheists might have a higher suicide rate than theists.[10] According to 
William Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are 
weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial 
nations.[11] Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related 
positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and 
self-transcendence.[12] Some studies state that in developed countries, health, 
life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical 
predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with 
higher proportions of believers.[13][14] Multiple methodological problems have 
been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and 
social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and 
secularity in developed democracies. [15]"

- wikipedia
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 12:48:50
Subject: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html

"Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill 
seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and 
Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking 
from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill 
prostitutes. "

http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/

"Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936.  Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He 
apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? 
by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, 
and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill 
children. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html

"Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba 
nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an 
alien attack."

http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php

"On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was 
arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he 
was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. 
God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. 
Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to 
torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was 
one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For 
such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned 
building. "


On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. 


Period?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html

"Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill 
seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and 
Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking 
from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill 
prostitutes. "

http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/

"Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936.  Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He 
apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? 
by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, 
and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill 
children. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html

"Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba 
nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an 
alien attack."

http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php

"On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was 
arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he 
was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. 
God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. 
Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to 
torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was 
one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For 
such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned 
building. " 

There are many

Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

Period, meaning that's it. 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 12:48:50
Subject: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html

"Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill 
seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and 
Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking 
from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill 
prostitutes. "

http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/

"Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936.  Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He 
apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? 
by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, 
and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill 
children. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html

"Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba 
nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an 
alien attack."

http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php

"On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was 
arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he 
was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. 
God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. 
Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to 
torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was 
one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For 
such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned 
building. "


On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. 


Period?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html

"Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill 
seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and 
Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking 
from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill 
prostitutes. "

http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/

"Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936.  Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He 
apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? 
by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, 
and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill 
children. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html

"Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba 
nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an 
alien attack."

http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php

"On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was 
arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he 
was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. 
God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. 
Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to 
torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was 
one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For 
such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned 
building. " 

There are many, many more of course...

-- 
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/-/bO19fN3wY3cJ.
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: Re: Re: the curse of materialism

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 


Do I have to tell you ? Fictitous objects have no consciousness.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 12:23:21
Subject: Re: Re: the curse of materialism




On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:03:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen,

Numbers do have an independent existence, that
being nonphysical existence.

Then so does Mickey Mouse have a nonphysical existence.

Do Mickey Mouse's thoughts have an independent existence too? Why not?

Craig 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-22, 12:28:48
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism


On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote:

> On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you 
 cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence 
 of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If 
 you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like 
 a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition 
 and multiplication in the sense I would wait for.
>>> Dear Bruno,
>>>
>>> Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I 
>>> need to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic?
>>
>> Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the 
>> numbers, so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form 
>> what you assume.
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
> I will differ to David Chalmers work to demonstrate a thorough 
> demolition of materialism. I see numbers are an aspect of mental 
> content and not independently existing entities, so we have an 
> irreconcilable difference in our thinking.

Then comp is meaningless. Even Church thesis is meaningless. Most 
papers you referred to becomes meaningless.



>
>
>
>>
>>> It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the 
>>> source of derivation of arithmetics!
>>
>> But you have to derive the physical activity first, then.
>>
>
> I no longer see the utility of trying to prove the existence of 
> the content of 1p experience.

I was talking of deriving physics. We accept content of experience in 
comp, but then we can recover it from the numbers complex behavior 
when looking at themselves. Then physics is or should be explained 
from that, as UDA explains.



> I experience it and can bet that you do as well. That is my theory 
> of a physical world and its activity in a nutshell.

That's the part where we agree.

I explain experience from computer science, and it seems you disagree 
with this, but then I don't understand why you keep defending comp as 
it is clear it does not fit with your theory.



>
>
>>
>>> Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entity 
>>> but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways and 
>>> developing communication methods between themselves.
>>> Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
>>> material things to have representations of things, intensionality, 
>>> such as numbers.
>>
>> yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you 
>> prove it first.
>
> What benefit comes from this "proof"?

To get an explanation.

Bruno


>
>
>>
>>> Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transform 
>>> themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which can 
>>> transform and remain the same!
>>
>> ? (looks like a prose to me).
>
> OK...

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



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsub...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/34OwtaYwo2EJ.
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: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

An anthropic God is the only one we can make sense of.




- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 09:22:38
Subject: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.




On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi John Clark 

>From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very 
very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. 

Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking 
beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my friend's 
church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services bore me but not 
as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a monotonous 
meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour monologue in Hebrew.

I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and 
seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous damage 
that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward crystal meth 
too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known too many 
exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives derailed by crystal.

Craig


 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:



>> The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the 
>> invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by 
>> the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the 
>> night sky were other suns very very far away. 

>The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology

In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it 
virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just 
rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. 



>than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. 

Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute.



>> Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than 
>> saying complexity came about from even more complexity. 


> Religion does the same thing. 

Bullshit.


> The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity

God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are. 



> Ron Popeil is not a theologian. 


True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells 
on TV actually exists.


>> What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious 
>> that contradicts what we think we know. 


> Not really.

Yes really.


> Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery.

Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they 
also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about 
gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have 
mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of 
surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not 
discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not 
surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many 
hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find 
anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a 
century.

ohn K Clark



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ.
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: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

OK,  you can see that in two current junk science cults:

(a) materialism

(b) climate change

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 09:15:40
Subject: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.




On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig,

What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ?

A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or 
a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which 
produces increasingly undesirable effects.

Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity 
and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual 
totalitarianism.

Craig


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-22, 11:00:27
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.




On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are 
being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist 
pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.

Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has 
displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world.  


This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. 
Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give 
evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories 
in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field 
of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the 
case for some scientists).








Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by 
the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by 
the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of 
possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of 
kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the 
suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated...



OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude 
can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This 
really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make "primary matter" the 
new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly 
assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong 
atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like 
if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific.


Bruno




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






-- 
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/-/RxABwuXe31MJ.
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:21:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
>  
> But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time
> as humans,
>

They do, of course. They experience what they are able to experience of the 
world just as we do.
 

> wouldn't there be a strange population of objects,
> and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being
> in the same space ?
>

No, there would be exactly what there is. 

If a child experiences a kitchen counter as being a place that is too high 
to reach, does that preclude an adult from seeing that same kitchen counter 
as being a surface which is reached conveniently? If you sit in a room with 
your wife on one side of the couch, does that mean that the experience of 
the room can't also exist in which you are on the other side of the couch?

  
>
 
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>
>  
>
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
>> you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
>> there is real prior to our individual observation because
>> it is all observed by God.
>>  
>>
>
> That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I 
> have never once said that existence is contingent upon *human*consciousness. 
> I state again and again that it is experience itself - the 
> capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all 
> possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an 
> experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into 
> being.
>
>   
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>  
>>> That is such a silly pov. 
>>>
>>
>> Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking 
>> about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan 
>> idealism.
>>  
>>
>>>  If a boulder
>>> fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
>>> you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
>>>
>>
>> It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you 
>> were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be 
>> no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your 
>> cells and organs, that's another matter.
>>  
>>
>>>  - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
>>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>>  
>>>> So the world did not exist before man ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not 
>>> define all experience in the universe.
>>>  
>>>
>>>>   
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Craig, 
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
>>>>>> possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
>>>>>> fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
>>>>>> what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
>>>>>> aetheric emptiness full mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 


But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time
as humans, wouldn't there be a strange population of objects,
and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being
in the same space ?


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.


That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have 
never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state 
again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor 
participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. 
Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no 
possibility of anything ever coming into being.



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. 

Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about 
so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism.
 

If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?

It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were 
in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 
'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells 
and organs, that's another matter.
 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So the world did not exist before man ?

The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define 
all experience in the universe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
Hi Craig, 

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for 
something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that 
critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless 
fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.



Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain 
that?

"come from" is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how 
one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not 
possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of 
sense. There has never been anything but sense.


Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
complexification of (this) universe?

Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.
 



What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the 
classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and 
decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me 
- faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and 
subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of 
multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being 
led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?



Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific 
theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?

My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of 
sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function 
of privatizing public qu

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
> >> wrote: 
> >> > That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. 
> I 
> >> > have 
> >> > never once said that existence is contingent upon human 
> consciousness. I 
> >> > state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for 
> >> > sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible 
> >> > forms of 
> >> > 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, 
> >> > otherwise 
> >> > there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. 
> >> 
> >> However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or 
> >> consciousness or experience. 
> > 
> > 
> > Then in what sense does it 'exist'? 
>
> It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't 
> Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard 
>

I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas 
to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially 
mechanistic.
 

>
> > 
> >> 
> >> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. 
> >> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your 
> >> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness 
> >> necessary? 
> >> Richard 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 
> > 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OmwLFfn7ecsJ.
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: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[John Mikes]

Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is
like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be
more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all.
Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat
Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed
exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.

So: happy illusions!

John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> >> wrote:
> >> > That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
> >> > have
> >> > never once said that existence is contingent upon human
> consciousness. I
> >> > state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
> >> > sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
> >> > forms of
> >> > 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
> >> > otherwise
> >> > there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.
> >>
> >> However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
> >> consciousness or experience.
> >
> >
> > Then in what sense does it 'exist'?
>
> It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
> Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard
>
> >
> >>
> >> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
> >> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
> >> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness
> >> necessary?
> >> Richard
> >
> > --
> > 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
> >
> > 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: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg 
>> wrote:
>> > That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
>> > have
>> > never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I
>> > state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
>> > sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
>> > forms of
>> > 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
>> > otherwise
>> > there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.
>>
>> However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
>> consciousness or experience.
>
>
> Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard

>
>>
>> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
>> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
>> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness
>> necessary?
>> Richard
>
> --
> 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
>
> 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: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> wrote: 
> > That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I 
> have 
> > never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I 
> > state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for 
> > sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible 
> forms of 
> > 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, 
> otherwise 
> > there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. 
>
> However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or 
> consciousness or experience. 


Then in what sense does it 'exist'?
 

> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. 
> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your 
> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness 
> necessary? 
> Richard 
>

-- 
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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
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: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have
> never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I
> state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
> sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of
> 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise
> there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
consciousness or experience. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness
necessary?
Richard

-- 
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: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:12:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe
> that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would
> be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane,
> but what if he had none ?
>

Then he detects it when he trips over it. Having eyes allows us to extend 
the range of our tripping and changes the quality of the experience as well.

Craig
 

>  
> - Receiving the following content - 
>
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 10:40:52
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>
>  
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>>  
>> But nothing would exist for a blind man,
>> since he can see nothing.
>>
>
> Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. 
> Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or 
> indirectly.
>  
>
>>   
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 09:11:18
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>  
>>> Could a blind man stub his toe ?
>>>
>>
>> Anyone can stub their toe.
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>>  
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
>>> *Subject:* Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>>>
>>>  What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the 
>>> universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien 
>>> intelligence?
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>  Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien 
>>>> intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael 
>>>> Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting 
>>>> people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have 
>>>> no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside 
>>>> to this way of thinking? 
>>>>  
>>>> Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and "Flying sphagetti 
>>>> monster" here I come?
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Y--Z92oZB8oJ.
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: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
> you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
> there is real prior to our individual observation because
> it is all observed by God.
>  
>

That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have 
never once said that existence is contingent upon *human* consciousness. I 
state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for 
sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms 
of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, 
otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>
>  
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> That is such a silly pov. 
>>
>
> Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking 
> about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan 
> idealism.
>  
>
>>  If a boulder
>> fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
>> you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
>>
>
> It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you 
> were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be 
> no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your 
> cells and organs, that's another matter.
>  
>
>>  - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>  
>>> So the world did not exist before man ?
>>>
>>
>> The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not 
>> define all experience in the universe.
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>>  
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
>>> *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> Hi Craig, 
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
>>>>> possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
>>>>> fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
>>>>> what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
>>>>> aetheric emptiness full mass.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to 
>>>> explain that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> "come from" is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is 
>>> how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 
>>>
>>> Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out 
>>> of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is 
>>> simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') 
>>> outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense.
>>>
>>>   Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
>>>> complexification of (this) universe?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
>>> proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
>>> sense. To make more and more and better sense.
>>>  
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything 
>>>>> beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous 
>>>>> appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's 
>>>>> tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled w

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. 

Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about 
so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism.
 

If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?

It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were 
in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 
'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells 
and organs, that's another matter.
 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So the world did not exist before man ?

The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define 
all experience in the universe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
Hi Craig, 

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for 
something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that 
critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless 
fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.



Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain 
that?

"come from" is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how 
one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not 
possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of 
sense. There has never been anything but sense.


Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
complexification of (this) universe?

Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.
 



What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the 
classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and 
decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me 
- faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and 
subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of 
multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being 
led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?



Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific 
theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?

My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of 
sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function 
of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other 
words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective 
perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent 
with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the 
phenomenon itself.

Craig
 



We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? 
What are we assuming about energy?

Craig 



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 
Empty Space is not Empty! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 

The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational 
aether. 

No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  And 
gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.


Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and th

Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe
that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would
be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane,
but what if he had none ?

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 10:40:52
Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 


But nothing would exist for a blind man,
since he can see nothing.

Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. Everything 
exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or indirectly.
 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18
Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Could a blind man stub his toe ?

Anyone can stub their toe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy


What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? 
Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence?

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 
Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, 
which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put 
this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or 
possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this 
conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? 

Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and "Flying sphagetti monster" 
here I come?
-- 
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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ.
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: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> That is such a silly pov. 
>

Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking 
about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan 
idealism.
 

> If a boulder
> fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
> you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
>

It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you 
were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be 
no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your 
cells and organs, that's another matter.
 

>  - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>
>  
>
> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> So the world did not exist before man ?
>>
>
> The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not 
> define all experience in the universe.
>  
>
>>   
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
>> *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
>>>
>>> Hi Craig, 
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
 The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
 possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
 fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
 what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
 aetheric emptiness full mass.

>>>
>>> Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to 
>>> explain that?
>>>
>>
>> "come from" is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is 
>> how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 
>>
>> Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out 
>> of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is 
>> simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') 
>> outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense.
>>
>>   Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
>>> complexification of (this) universe?
>>>
>>
>> Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
>> proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
>> sense. To make more and more and better sense.
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>

 What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything 
 beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous 
 appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's 
 tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete 
 sensory 
 appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - 
 meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. 
 It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular 
 reasoning 
 and instrumental assumptions. 

 What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as 
 a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
 constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
 Universe from Nothing falsifiable?

>>>
>>> Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become 
>>> scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?
>>>
>>
>> My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the 
>> context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood 
>> as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private 
>> qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from 
>> an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a 
>> theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only 
>> to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself.
>>
>> Craig
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>

 We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure 
 particles? What are we assuming about energy?

 Craig 



 On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>
> On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 
>
> Empty Space is not Empty! 
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
>  
>
> The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's 
> gravitational aether. 
>
>
> No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  
> And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.
>
> M

Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
>  
> But nothing would exist for a blind man,
> since he can see nothing.
>

Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. 
Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or 
indirectly.
 

>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 09:11:18
> *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>
>  
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> Could a blind man stub his toe ?
>>
>
> Anyone can stub their toe.
>  
>
>>   
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
>> *Subject:* Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>>
>>  What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the 
>> universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien 
>> intelligence?
>>
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien 
>>> intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael 
>>> Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting 
>>> people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have 
>>> no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside 
>>> to this way of thinking? 
>>>  
>>> Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and "Flying sphagetti 
>>> monster" here I come?
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ.
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: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 


But nothing would exist for a blind man,
since he can see nothing.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18
Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Could a blind man stub his toe ?

Anyone can stub their toe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy


What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? 
Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence?

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 
Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, 
which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put 
this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or 
possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this 
conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? 

Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and "Flying sphagetti monster" 
here I come?
-- 
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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J.
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: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So the world did not exist before man ?

The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define 
all experience in the universe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
Hi Craig, 

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for 
something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that 
critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless 
fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.



Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain 
that?

"come from" is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how 
one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not 
possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of 
sense. There has never been anything but sense.


Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
complexification of (this) universe?

Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.
 



What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the 
classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and 
decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me 
- faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and 
subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of 
multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being 
led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?



Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific 
theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?

My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of 
sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function 
of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other 
words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective 
perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent 
with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the 
phenomenon itself.

Craig
 



We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? 
What are we assuming about energy?

Craig 



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 
Empty Space is not Empty! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 

The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational 
aether. 

No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  And 
gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.


Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space 
in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even though they 
don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic 
energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.



Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but 
from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a 
physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity 
if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason 
why we need a Higgs mechanism? 


Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got 
the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.

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/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ. 

To po

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 3:06:07 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> They don't make sense to you but they do make
> make sense to me. Could it be that you are a low
> information, low understanding person ? 
>

You can say that it makes sense to you, but I think that you just want it 
to make sense. I don't know that it makes you any kind of person or not, 
but I try not to draw conclusions about people based on the collection of 
ideas which they happen to have inherited.
 

>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:00:34
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>
>  
>
> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> So you belong to the liberal thought police then.
>>
>
> Haha of course.  How could it be possible for anyone to see the 
> contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal 
> thought police'?
>
>  Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot
>> have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems.
>>
>
> You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they 
> don't seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the 
> conservative apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to 
> my case. Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could 
> possibly have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of 
> a God who is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness.
>
>   
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 14:18:16
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>  
>>> Then you believe that God exists. 
>>> That's a good start.
>>>
>>
>> Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of 
>> having it?
>>
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>>  
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18
>>> *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>>>>
>>>> Many are called, but few are chosen. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, 
>>> or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by  a 
>>> all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
>>>> 1/19/2013   
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>>>> - Receiving the following content -   
>>>> From: Craig Weinberg   
>>>> Receiver: everything-list   
>>>> Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 
>>>> Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to 
>>>> those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator 
>>>> of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and 
>>>> tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as 
>>>> it 
>>>> is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some 
>>>> profound 
>>>> wisdom and lurid violence. 
>>>>
>>>> But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and 
>>>> re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of 
>>>> people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their 
>>>> lives 
>>>> will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no 
>>>> blessing. 
>>>>
>>>> Craig 
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>> A God-limited God - My Theodicy   
>>>>
>>>> A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

They don't make sense to you but they do make
make sense to me. Could it be that you are a low
information, low understanding person ? 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:00:34
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So you belong to the liberal thought police then.

Haha of course.  How could it be possible for anyone to see the contradiction 
of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal thought police'?


Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot
have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems.

You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't 
seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative 
apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. 
Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly have 
to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who is 
functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness.




- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 14:18:16
Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Then you believe that God exists. 
That's a good start.

Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it?

 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-19, 09:55:18
Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg   

Many are called, but few are chosen. 


You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that 
they are intentionally called and abandoned by  a 
all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God?




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
1/19/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 


The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we 
could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the 
universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize 
man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of 
contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and 
lurid violence. 

But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written 
over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live 
their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for 
the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. 

Craig 

On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
A God-limited God - My Theodicy   

A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man.   
This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and   
reason. Comments appreciated.   

Most of the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible,   
such as a loving God lashing out at sinners,   
practically committing genocide, or a loving God   
allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing   
evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed   
to a misunderstanding of God's true nature.   

For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has   
willingly limited his possible actions in this world   
to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as   
the pre-existing truths of necessary reason.   

Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the   
sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified   
by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey 
his own justice.   

Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation.   
Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5.   
God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust.   

And God has given man free will, so that men can   
do evil as well as good.   

Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven,   
in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his   
powers of action.   


- Roger Clough   

--   
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/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. 
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-li...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http:/

Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> So you belong to the liberal thought police then.
>

Haha of course.  How could it be possible for anyone to see the 
contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal 
thought police'?

Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot
> have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems.
>

You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't 
seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative 
apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. 
Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly 
have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who 
is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness.

 
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 14:18:16
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>
>  
>
> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> Then you believe that God exists. 
>> That's a good start.
>>
>
> Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of 
> having it?
>
>  
>
>>   
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>>>
>>> Many are called, but few are chosen. 
>>>
>>
>> You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, 
>> or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by  a 
>> all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
>>> 1/19/2013   
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>>> - Receiving the following content -   
>>> From: Craig Weinberg   
>>> Receiver: everything-list   
>>> Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 
>>> Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 
>>>
>>>
>>> The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to 
>>> those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator 
>>> of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and 
>>> tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it 
>>> is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound 
>>> wisdom and lurid violence. 
>>>
>>> But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and 
>>> re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of 
>>> people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives 
>>> will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no 
>>> blessing. 
>>>
>>> Craig 
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>> A God-limited God - My Theodicy   
>>>
>>> A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man.   
>>> This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and   
>>> reason. Comments appreciated.   
>>>
>>> Most of the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible,   
>>> such as a loving God lashing out at sinners,   
>>> practically committing genocide, or a loving God   
>>> allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing   
>>> evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed   
>>> to a misunderstanding of God's true nature.   
>>>
>>> For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has   
>>> willingly limited his possible actions in this world   
>>> to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as   
>>> the pre-existing truths of necessary reason.   
>>>
>>> Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the   
>>> sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified   
>>> by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey 
>>> his own justice.   
>>>
>>> Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation.   
>>> Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+

Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

So you belong to the liberal thought police then.
Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot
have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 14:18:16
Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Then you believe that God exists. 
That's a good start.

Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it?

 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-19, 09:55:18
Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg   

Many are called, but few are chosen. 


You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that 
they are intentionally called and abandoned by  a 
all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God?




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
1/19/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 


The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we 
could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the 
universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize 
man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of 
contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and 
lurid violence. 

But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written 
over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live 
their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for 
the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. 

Craig 

On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
A God-limited God - My Theodicy   

A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man.   
This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and   
reason. Comments appreciated.   

Most of the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible,   
such as a loving God lashing out at sinners,   
practically committing genocide, or a loving God   
allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing   
evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed   
to a misunderstanding of God's true nature.   

For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has   
willingly limited his possible actions in this world   
to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as   
the pre-existing truths of necessary reason.   

Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the   
sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified   
by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey 
his own justice.   

Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation.   
Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5.   
God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust.   

And God has given man free will, so that men can   
do evil as well as good.   

Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven,   
in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his   
powers of action.   


- Roger Clough   

--   
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/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. 
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gdJXht6KYKUJ.
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 yo

Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Then you believe that God exists. 
> That's a good start.
>

Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having 
it?

 

>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18
> *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>>
>> Many are called, but few are chosen. 
>>
>
> You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or 
> that they are intentionally called and abandoned by  a 
> all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God?
>
>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
>> 1/19/2013   
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>> - Receiving the following content -   
>> From: Craig Weinberg   
>> Receiver: everything-list   
>> Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 
>> Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 
>>
>>
>> The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to 
>> those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator 
>> of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and 
>> tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it 
>> is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound 
>> wisdom and lurid violence. 
>>
>> But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and 
>> re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of 
>> people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives 
>> will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no 
>> blessing. 
>>
>> Craig 
>>
>> On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>> A God-limited God - My Theodicy   
>>
>> A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man.   
>> This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and   
>> reason. Comments appreciated.   
>>
>> Most of the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible,   
>> such as a loving God lashing out at sinners,   
>> practically committing genocide, or a loving God   
>> allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing   
>> evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed   
>> to a misunderstanding of God's true nature.   
>>
>> For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has   
>> willingly limited his possible actions in this world   
>> to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as   
>> the pre-existing truths of necessary reason.   
>>
>> Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the   
>> sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified   
>> by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey 
>> his own justice.   
>>
>> Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation.   
>> Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5.   
>> God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust.   
>>
>> And God has given man free will, so that men can   
>> do evil as well as good.   
>>
>> Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven,   
>> in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his   
>> powers of action.   
>>
>>
>> - Roger Clough   
>>
>> --   
>> 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/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. 
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gdJXht6KYKUJ.
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: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Then you believe that God exists. 
That's a good start.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-19, 09:55:18
Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg   

Many are called, but few are chosen. 


You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that 
they are intentionally called and abandoned by  a 
all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God?




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
1/19/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 


The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we 
could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the 
universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize 
man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of 
contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and 
lurid violence. 

But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written 
over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live 
their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for 
the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. 

Craig 

On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
A God-limited God - My Theodicy   

A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man.   
This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and   
reason. Comments appreciated.   

Most of the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible,   
such as a loving God lashing out at sinners,   
practically committing genocide, or a loving God   
allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing   
evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed   
to a misunderstanding of God's true nature.   

For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has   
willingly limited his possible actions in this world   
to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as   
the pre-existing truths of necessary reason.   

Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the   
sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified   
by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey 
his own justice.   

Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation.   
Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5.   
God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust.   

And God has given man free will, so that men can   
do evil as well as good.   

Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven,   
in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his   
powers of action.   


- Roger Clough   

--   
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/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. 
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ.
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: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland

[Craig Weinberg]

I First person singular 
We First person plural 
You Second person singular / second person plural 
He Third person masculine singular 
She Third person feminine singular 
It Third person neutral singular 
They Third person plural / third person gender-neutral singular

On Friday, January 18, 2013 7:29:43 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Russell Standish 
>
> Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively 
> and without reference to anything else.   
> Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with 
> respect to a second but regardless of any third.   
> Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing 
> a second and third into relation to each other." 
>
> I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness 
> (identification of the image "cat" with the word "cast" to oneself) 
> and 3p = Thirdness (expression of "cat" to others) 
>

All of these are 1p. To get to 3p you would have to talk about things like 
the volume or composition of the cat's body.

Craig 

>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] 
>   
>
>
> Peirce 
> Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what 
> happened 
> at each stage,1/18/2013   
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content -   
> From: Russell Standish   
> Receiver: everything-list   
> Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 
> Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland 
>
>
> Hi John, 
>
> My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic 
> view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection 
> with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand 
> about 
> > objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and 
> > cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, 
> who - 
> > maybe? - got it what 2p was. 
> > My vocabulary allows me to consider what "I consider" (=1p) and I may 
> > communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p 
> > communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed 
> > into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 
> > 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p 
> mindset. 
> > No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? 
> > John Mikes 
> >   
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: 
> >   
> > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: 
> > > > Hi Russell Standish 
> > > > 
> > > > 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses 
> synthetic 
> > > logic. 
> > > > It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. 
> > > > 
> > > > The following equivalences should hold between comp 
> > > > and Peirce's logical categories: 
> > > > 
> > > > 3p = Thirdness or III 
> > > > 2p = Secondness or II 
> > > > 1p = Firstness or I. 
> > > > 
> > > > Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, 
> > > > while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic 
> > > > logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. 
> > > > So . 
> > > > 
> > > > Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: 
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > "Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, 
> > > > positively and without reference to anything else. 
> > > > 
> > > > Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, 
> > > > with respect to a second but regardless of any third. 
> > > > 
> > > > Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, 
> > > > in bringing a second and third into relation to each other." 
> > > > (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904)" 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I 
> > > cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that 
> > > relate to subjectivity and objectivity. 
> > > 
> > > As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
>  
>
> > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> > > Principal, High Performance Coders 
> > > Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au  
> > > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
> > > 
> > > 
>  
>
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > > "Everything List" group. 
> > > To post to this group, send email to 
> > > everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>

Re: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland

[Roger Clough]

Hi Russell Standish

Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and 
without reference to anything else.  
Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to 
a second but regardless of any third.  
Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a 
second and third into relation to each other."

I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification 
of the image "cat" with the word "cast" to oneself)
and 3p = Thirdness (expression of "cat" to others) 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 


Peirce 
Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened
at each stage,1/18/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Russell Standish  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 
Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland 


Hi John, 

My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic 
view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection 
with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. 

Cheers 

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: 
> Russell, 
> I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about 
> objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and 
> cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - 
> maybe? - got it what 2p was. 
> My vocabulary allows me to consider what "I consider" (=1p) and I may 
> communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p 
> communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed 
> into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 
> 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. 
> No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? 
> John Mikes 
>  
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: 
>  
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: 
> > > Hi Russell Standish 
> > > 
> > > 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic 
> > logic. 
> > > It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. 
> > > 
> > > The following equivalences should hold between comp 
> > > and Peirce's logical categories: 
> > > 
> > > 3p = Thirdness or III 
> > > 2p = Secondness or II 
> > > 1p = Firstness or I. 
> > > 
> > > Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, 
> > > while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic 
> > > logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. 
> > > So . 
> > > 
> > > Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: 
> > > 
> > > http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, 
> > > positively and without reference to anything else. 
> > > 
> > > Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, 
> > > with respect to a second but regardless of any third. 
> > > 
> > > Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, 
> > > in bringing a second and third into relation to each other." 
> > > (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904)" 
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I 
> > cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that 
> > relate to subjectivity and objectivity. 
> > 
> > As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> > Principal, High Performance Coders 
> > Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
> > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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. 
>  

--  

 
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
Principal, High Performa

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should beTwoAspects Theory

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 


OK, I was just thinking in my old engineering frame of mind.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/17/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-17, 11:59:05
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should beTwoAspects 
Theory




On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:54:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg   

Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? 


You said "Potential energy is more than conceptual", so I am explaining why I 
disagree. Potential energy is entirely conceptual, just like any other 
potential, virtual, or symbolic value. Energy is a way of keeping track of what 
could happen, just as money is a way of keeping track of what people could do. 
Without people, we can see that money is just paper and numbers and metal bars. 
Without matter, energy is similarly nothing at all.




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
1/17/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects 
Theory 




On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg   

1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves.   

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438   

2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored 
in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. 
Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. 


It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and 
demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said 
figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 
'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity 
of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. 
There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is 
exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium 
through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real 
commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of 
matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not 
a substance of any kind.   


3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. 
Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes.   

Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing 
positions of matter, nothing else. 

Craig 
  




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]   
1/15/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen   
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03   
Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
Theory   




On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:   
Hi Craig Weinberg   

Why not ? There are gravitational waves.   


How do you know there are gravitational waves?   


But earthquakes usually initiate waves   
by the sudden release of potential energy.   


Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a 
feeling of tension as different geological   
plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly 
pattern, which we think of as wavelike   
because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no 
energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible 
geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction.   

Craig   




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]   
1/14/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen   
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20   
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory   




On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:   
Hi Richard Ruquist   

EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime.   
You can capture them with an antenna, etc.   


Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth?   

>From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the 
>waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in 
>empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one 
>sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks 
>like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical sens

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:54:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>
> Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? 
>

You said "Potential energy is more than conceptual", so I am explaining why 
I disagree. Potential energy is entirely conceptual, just like any other 
potential, virtual, or symbolic value. Energy is a way of keeping track of 
what could happen, just as money is a way of keeping track of what people 
could do. Without people, we can see that money is just paper and numbers 
and metal bars. Without matter, energy is similarly nothing at all.


>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] 
> 1/17/2013   
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content -   
> From: Craig Weinberg   
> Receiver: everything-list   
> Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be 
> TwoAspects Theory 
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>
> 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves.   
>
> http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438   
>
> 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy 
> stored 
> in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. 
> Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. 
>
>
> It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and 
> demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be 
> said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that 
> they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is 
> literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or 
> their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or 
> extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to 
> restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to 
> pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and 
> engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at 
> all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind.   
>
>
> 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. 
> Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes.   
>
> Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the 
> changing positions of matter, nothing else. 
>
> Craig 
>   
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]   
> 1/15/2013   
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen   
> - Receiving the following content -   
> From: Craig Weinberg   
> Receiver: everything-list   
> Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03   
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
> Theory   
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:   
> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>
> Why not ? There are gravitational waves.   
>
>
> How do you know there are gravitational waves?   
> 
>
> But earthquakes usually initiate waves   
> by the sudden release of potential energy.   
>
>
> Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a 
> feeling of tension as different geological   
> plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an 
> orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike   
> because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is 
> no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a 
> tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical 
> fiction.   
>
> Craig   
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]   
> 1/14/2013   
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen   
> - Receiving the following content -   
> From: Craig Weinberg   
> Receiver: everything-list   
> Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20   
> Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
> Theory   
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:   
> Hi Richard Ruquist   
>
> EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime.   
> You can capture them with an antenna, etc.   
>
>
> Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth?   
>
> From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to 
> the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal 
> waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks 
> like when one se

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg  

Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/17/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects 
Theory 




On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg  

1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves.  

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438  

2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored 
in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. 
Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. 


It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and 
demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said 
figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 
'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity 
of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. 
There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is 
exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium 
through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real 
commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of 
matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not 
a substance of any kind.  


3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. 
Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes.  

Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing 
positions of matter, nothing else. 

Craig 
  




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
1/15/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03  
Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
Theory  




On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:  
Hi Craig Weinberg  

Why not ? There are gravitational waves.  


How do you know there are gravitational waves?  
   

But earthquakes usually initiate waves  
by the sudden release of potential energy.  


Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a 
feeling of tension as different geological  
plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly 
pattern, which we think of as wavelike  
because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no 
energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible 
geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction.  

Craig  




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
1/14/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20  
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory  




On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:  
Hi Richard Ruquist  

EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime.  
You can capture them with an antenna, etc.  


Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth?  

>From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the 
>waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in 
>empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one 
>sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks 
>like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses.  



I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments,  
you seem to have some interesting ideas.  

Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves  
are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light.  


Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'.  


Craig  




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
1/13/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11  
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory  


EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify  
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and  
nonphysical.  
The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap  
between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger  
puts it, a dual aspect theory.  

What I picture i

Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>
> 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. 
>
> http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 
>
> 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy 
> stored
> in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material.
> Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring.
>

It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and 
demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be 
said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that 
they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is 
literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or 
their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or 
extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to 
restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to 
pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and 
engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at 
all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 

>
> 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here.
> Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. 
>

Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the 
changing positions of matter, nothing else.

Craig
 

>  
>  
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] 
> 1/15/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: Craig Weinberg 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
> Theory 
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
> Hi Craig Weinberg 
>
> Why not ? There are gravitational waves. 
>
>
> How do you know there are gravitational waves? 
>   
>
> But earthquakes usually initiate waves 
> by the sudden release of potential energy. 
>
>
> Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a 
> feeling of tension as different geological 
> plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an 
> orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike 
> because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is 
> no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a 
> tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical 
> fiction. 
>
> Craig 
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 1/14/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content - 
> From: Craig Weinberg 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 
> Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
> Theory 
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
> Hi Richard Ruquist 
>
> EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. 
> You can capture them with an antenna, etc. 
>
>
> Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? 
>
> From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to 
> the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal 
> waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks 
> like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied 
> organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and 
> optical senses. 
>
>
>
> I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, 
> you seem to have some interesting ideas. 
>
> Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves 
> are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. 
>
>
> Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. 
>
>
> Craig 
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 1/13/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content - 
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 
> Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory 
>
>
> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify 
> them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and 
> nonphysical. 
> The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap 
> between the physical and the mind in a mind/body dual

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg  

I agree with you. I have no idea what Richard has in mind. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/16/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-16, 09:16:17 
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 


I don't really see much of a difference whether we talk about BECs, strings, 
charged geometries, vacuum flux, aether, numbers, or any other spatially 
structured medium. Who cares? The question is how does that begin to know about 
something and to care about it? 

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:08:35 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Richard Ruquist

OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.  

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49  
Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism  


Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can  
form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one  
substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively  
outside spacetime.  
Richard  

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:  
> Hi Richard Ruquist  
>  
> That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is  
> not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in  
> some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be  
> considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course  
> be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.  
> It is not even a brain in a vat.  
>  
>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
> 1/16/2013  
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
> - Receiving the following content -  
> From: Richard Ruquist  
> Receiver: everything-list  
> Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52  
> Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism  
>  
>  
> Roger,  
> I liked your "1p think therefore 1p am"  
>  
> But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.  
>  
> Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.  
> Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.  
>  
> That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.  
> Something you have been preaching for some time.  
> With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.  
>  
> Instant action derives directly from your claim that  
> the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields  
> are out side of spacetime.  
>  
> I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime  
> because the quantum mind is a  
> Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.  
> which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet  
> act as though they were out of spacetime.  
> Richard  
>  
> -- Forwarded message --  
> From: Roger Clough  
> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM  
> Subject: the curse of materialism  
> To: everything-list  
>  
>  
> Hi socr...@bezeqint.net  
>  
> You want to know why nobody understands QM ?  
> Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.  
> This might be called the curse of materialism.  
>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
> 1/16/2013  
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
> - Receiving the following content -  
> From: socr...@bezeqint.net  
> Receiver: Everything List  
> Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20  
> Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.  
>  
>  
> Physics and Metaphysics.  
>  
> John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne  
> === .  
>  
> John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?  
> the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that  
> nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?  
> Why?  
> Because, he wrote:  
> ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.  
> We shall see in what follows that important interpretative  
> issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their  
> eventual settlement not only physical insight but also  
> metaphysical decision ?.  
> / preface/  
> ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,  
> and these are the subject of continuing dispute?  
> / page 40/  
> ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,  
> it is that the world is full of surprises?  
> / page 87 /  
> ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take  
> very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory  
> include: . . . .?  
> / page 88 /  
> ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?  
> / page92 /  
> ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and  
> instructive phenomenon, . .?  
> / page 92 /  
> ==.  
> In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing  
> what to understand and to s

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

OK I'm fired. I leave the issue to you.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-16, 09:43:48
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


Roger,
Your presumptions are incorrect.
Also your monad definition.
I am too old for bare naked.
Stop being silly.
Richard

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Yes, of course. The monads are mental representations of
> physical bodies in the world. You will presumably have for
> your physical object some container in L He with a BEC
> at the bottom. Physical objects such as rocks produce
> "bare naked " monads. Is that what you want ?
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/16/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>
>
> I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>
>> OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/16/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Richard Ruquist
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>>
>>
>> Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
>> form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
>> substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
>> outside spacetime.
>> Richard
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>>
>>> That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is
>>> not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in
>>> some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
>>> considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course
>>> be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.
>>> It is not even a brain in a vat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/16/2013
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Richard Ruquist
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52
>>> Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger,
>>> I liked your "1p think therefore 1p am"
>>>
>>> But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
>>> Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.
>>>
>>> That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
>>> Something you have been preaching for some time.
>>> With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.
>>>
>>> Instant action derives directly from your claim that
>>> the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
>>> are out side of spacetime.
>>>
>>> I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
>>> because the quantum mind is a
>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
>>> which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
>>> act as though they were out of spacetime.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message --
>>> From: Roger Clough
>>> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
>>> Subject: the curse of materialism
>>> To: everything-list
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
>>>
>>> You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
>>> Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
>>> This might be called the curse of materialism.
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/16/2013
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: socra...@bezeqint.net
>>> Receiver: Everything List

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger,
Your presumptions are incorrect.
Also your monad definition.
I am too old for bare naked.
Stop being silly.
Richard

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Yes, of course.  The monads are mental representations of
> physical bodies in the world.  You will presumably have for
> your physical object some container in L He with a BEC
> at the bottom.  Physical objects such as rocks produce
> "bare naked " monads. Is that what you want ?
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/16/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>
>
> I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>
>> OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/16/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Richard Ruquist
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>>
>>
>> Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
>> form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
>> substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
>> outside spacetime.
>> Richard
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>>
>>> That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is
>>> not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in
>>> some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
>>> considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course
>>> be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.
>>> It is not even a brain in a vat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/16/2013
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Richard Ruquist
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52
>>> Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger,
>>> I liked your "1p think therefore 1p am"
>>>
>>> But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
>>> Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.
>>>
>>> That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
>>> Something you have been preaching for some time.
>>> With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.
>>>
>>> Instant action derives directly from your claim that
>>> the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
>>> are out side of spacetime.
>>>
>>> I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
>>> because the quantum mind is a
>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
>>> which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
>>> act as though they were out of spacetime.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message --
>>> From: Roger Clough
>>> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
>>> Subject: the curse of materialism
>>> To: everything-list
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
>>>
>>> You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
>>> Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
>>> This might be called the curse of materialism.
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/16/2013
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: socra...@bezeqint.net
>>> Receiver: Everything List
>>> Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
>>> Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> Physics and Metaphysics.
>>>
>>> John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
>>> === .
>>>
>>> John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
>>> the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
>>> nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
>>> Why?
>>> Because, he wrote:
>>> ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
>>> We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
>>> issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
>>> eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
>>> metaphysical decision ?.
>>> / preface/
>>> ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
>>> and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
>>> / page 40/
>>> ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
>>> it is that the world is full of surprises?
>>> / page 87 /
>>> ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
>>> very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
>>> include: . . . .?
>>> / page 88 /
>>> ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . .

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist  

Yes, of course.  The monads are mental representations of  
physical bodies in the world.  You will presumably have for 
your physical object some container in L He with a BEC 
at the bottom.  Physical objects such as rocks produce 
"bare naked " monads. Is that what you want ? 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/16/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38 
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 


I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads 

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
> Hi Richard Ruquist 
> 
> OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. 
> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 1/16/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content - 
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49 
> Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
> 
> 
> Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can 
> form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one 
> substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively 
> outside spacetime. 
> Richard 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>> Hi Richard Ruquist 
>> 
>> That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is 
>> not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in 
>> some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be 
>> considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course 
>> be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. 
>> It is not even a brain in a vat. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
>> 1/16/2013 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> From: Richard Ruquist 
>> Receiver: everything-list 
>> Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52 
>> Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
>> 
>> 
>> Roger, 
>> I liked your "1p think therefore 1p am" 
>> 
>> But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. 
>> 
>> Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. 
>> Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. 
>> 
>> That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. 
>> Something you have been preaching for some time. 
>> With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. 
>> 
>> Instant action derives directly from your claim that 
>> the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields 
>> are out side of spacetime. 
>> 
>> I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime 
>> because the quantum mind is a 
>> Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. 
>> which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet 
>> act as though they were out of spacetime. 
>> Richard 
>> 
>> -- Forwarded message -- 
>> From: Roger Clough 
>> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM 
>> Subject: the curse of materialism 
>> To: everything-list 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 
>> 
>> You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
>> Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
>> This might be called the curse of materialism. 
>> 
>> 
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
>> 1/16/2013 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
>> Receiver: Everything List 
>> Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
>> Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
>> 
>> 
>> Physics and Metaphysics. 
>> 
>> John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
>> === . 
>> 
>> John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
>> the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
>> nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
>> Why? 
>> Because, he wrote: 
>> ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
>> We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
>> issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
>> eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
>> metaphysical decision ?. 
>> / preface/ 
>> ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
>> and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
>> / page 40/ 
>> ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
>> it is that the world is full of surprises? 
>> / page 87 / 
>> ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take 
>> very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory 
>> include: . . . .? 
>> / page 88 / 
>> ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? 
>> / page92 / 
>> ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and 
>> instructive phenomenon, . .? 
>> / page 92 / 
>> ==. 
>> In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing 
>> what

Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. 

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 

2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored
in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material.
Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring.

3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here.
Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/15/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
Theory 




On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Why not ? There are gravitational waves. 


How do you know there are gravitational waves? 
  

But earthquakes usually initiate waves 
by the sudden release of potential energy. 


Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a 
feeling of tension as different geological 
plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly 
pattern, which we think of as wavelike 
because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no 
energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible 
geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. 

Craig 




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
1/14/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory 




On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Richard Ruquist 

EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. 
You can capture them with an antenna, etc. 


Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? 

>From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the 
>waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in 
>empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one 
>sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks 
>like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. 
   


I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, 
you seem to have some interesting ideas. 

Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves 
are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. 


Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. 


Craig 
   



[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
1/13/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory 


EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify 
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and 
nonphysical. 
The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap 
between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger 
puts it, a dual aspect theory. 

What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum 
mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the 
size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at 
the Planck scale. 

I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle 
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it 
does not rule out MWI. 

But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the 
Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum 
Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be 
used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back 
instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra 
worlds of MWI. 

Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So 
I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of 
consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are 
needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any 
particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each 
of us possesses similar consciousness. 

Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness 
investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I 
base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish 
almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of 
consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may 
differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. 
T

Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> > God is everything, including this list.
>
>
> Then "God" means nothing because meaning needs contrast. If everything that
> exists and everything that doesn't exist and everything you can imagine and
> everything that you can't imagine has the property of being Klogknee then
> the word "Klogknee" means nothing.
>
>   John K Clark

The universe provides sufficient contrasting objects,
some even consciousness.

However, one may identify various aspects of god
and thereby cover all the kinds of gods that people might want to have.

At the top level we want the most comprehensive god possible.
I say that omniscience is the most comprehensive aspect of a god.

Such a comprehensive god is consistent with Indra's Net of Jewels,
each reflecting the entire universe;

and certainly consistent with the monads of liebniz,
each having perception of the entire universe;

And perhaps the universal cubic lattice of string theory
Calabi-Yau Compact Manifold (CM) particles,
each conjectured to map the entire universe
is also a most comprehensive god..

In the next level down, omniscience is locally sacrificed for power,
a quantum dynamic duality between power and omniscience,
a kind of consciousness inverse uncertainty principle
in the quantum mechanics of consciousness
that even works on the human level.*

*In order to focus consciousness on a project,
you have to block out all other sources of information.

Richard,
complex variables go with quantum mechanics

>
> --
> 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: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> God is everything, including this list.
>

Then "God" means nothing because meaning needs contrast. If everything that
exists and everything that doesn't exist and everything you can imagine and
everything that you can't imagine has the property of being Klogknee then
the word "Klogknee" means nothing.

  John K Clark

-- 
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: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

[Alberto G. Corona]

You are californian its'nt?


2013/1/14 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> THe problem with solar energy is that it is strongly subsidized.
>>
>
> Yes, but this is lessening. Protectionism is crumbling.
>
>
>>  Instead of you being stolen by "monopolistic" energy companies, you can
>> steal the taxpayer thank to state planning.
>>
>>
> I am the taxpayer and this is better than weapons business or paying for
> prohibition.
>
>
>> Most solar panels are installed because they receive subsidies by KW. As
>> a logical consequience a boost in production is expected. In fact they
>> produced electricity even in the night at full level. ... With some help of
>>  pirate electrogenerators working with fossil fuels, hidden near then. Many
>> governments, ruined by this authentic robbery or all these ecological
>> friends of the planet, had to switch the schema of subsidies, to a fixed
>> schema, that don´t take into account the production.
>>
>
> You have to incentivize early adopters. When they are weaned off in a
> couple of years, more renewable energies and their mixes will have the same
> cost effectivity.
>
>
>>  That foreseeable bureaucratic move had the foreseeable consequences:
>> That rendered the most productive and expensive and technologically
>> advanced panels a ruinous investment. Technological development has stopped
>> and engineers fired. Because the subsidies is independent of production
>> now, most of them don care to maintain the panels. Most of them do not plug
>> them to the transmission lines and generate the minimum required of
>> production  at sun ours with less fossil fuel generators while they receive
>> the solar subsidies.
>>
>
> For the first time last year; at certain times, up to half of Germany's
> electricity demand were covered by mix of renewable energy.
>
>
>>
>> According with the subsidies contracts, made at the peak of the bubble,
>> countries like Spain and Germany have compromises of payment that they will
>> not have enough money from taxpayers to pay now and in the coming years.
>> The had to break contracts and reduce subsidies, damaging the credibility
>> of the judicial system, many best producers lost their investments and only
>> the worst  had benefits. Most of them, big companies which had contact with
>> the government  and knew in advance the changes so they reacted accordingly
>> to have the maximum cost-benefit with the less investment.
>>
>
> Instead of complaining now or watching what the market does, by not really
> watching it á la Roger, better include the future when considering past and
> present: I bet that Spain, with its sunshine monopoly and mix of renewable
> energy and infrastructure investment of the last years, will be able to
> fend off worst effects of economic woes in Europe when compared to Greece
> etc.
>
> Spain will be better positioned in the next years even though it now looks
> worrying.
>
>
>>
>> Those that were conscious that what the panels produce is not electricity
>> forever, but suck money from the taxpayers  as long as the subsidy plans
>> were active, won.
>>
>>
> Yeah, so traditional fossil fuels produce energy forever and don't cost
> taxpayer any money while minimizing harm for the environment and
> democratizing energy generation. And the prices keep falling.
>
>
>> And this is the result of just another wonderful state planning experiment
>>
>>
> A state that makes no bets on sustainability, however misguided or corrupt
> they seem at the start (technology never appears in its most efficient
> guise at the beginning), is undermining its own role as infrastructure
> provider and governing body. Luckily more people are taking things into
> their own hands: local engineers are volunteering their free time to help
> render their communities and districts more sustainably through more
> intelligent and locally sourced energy mixes.
>
> Nobody is pounding on solar exclusively: straw man.
>
> Thus in a non-literal sense:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTErMW2jBJA
>
> PGC
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2013/1/14 Roger Clough 
>>
>>> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>>>
>>> A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt
>>> spending as it is.
>>>
>>> But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide.
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/14/2013
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52
>>> Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Roger
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>>>
>>> I always let the market decide.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has
>>> decided: you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy
>>> industry to contin

Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

[Telmo Menezes]

>
>
>>
> Instead of complaining now or watching what the market does, by not really
> watching it á la Roger, better include the future when considering past and
> present: I bet that Spain, with its sunshine monopoly and mix of renewable
> energy and infrastructure investment of the last years, will be able to
> fend off worst effects of economic woes in Europe when compared to Greece
> etc.
>
> Spain will be better positioned in the next years even though it now looks
> worrying.
>
>
>
My home country is neighbouring Portugal, and we made a huge investment on
renewable energy sources in the last decade - solar and wind. It was (and
still is) highly subsidised by the state. I still have an appartement there
and pay the monthly energy bill. I pay a similar amount to my friends and
family who actually live there and use energy, because the energy bill is
now about 75% taxes. I recently received an email warning me that I'll have
to pay even more this year. Energy-dependent industry is collapsing all
over the country because their business in no longer viable. One of the
main industrial plants (metallurgic) near my home town closed its doors
last year. This tax now extends to gas. Stealing gas from cars is now
becoming a common crime (almost unheard of a couple years ago).

Meanwhile Paris runs on nuclear energy. My energy bill here is about half
of my Portuguese energy bill - the latter for zero kW. I spent Christmas
night at my in-laws and they turned up the heating as a special treat.
Keeping it on the entire month would cost them about 900 euros.

This is the view from the ground.

-- 
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: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>
> Why not ? There are gravitational waves. 
>

How do you know there are gravitational waves?
 

> But earthquakes usually initiate waves 
> by the sudden release of potential energy. 
>

Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a 
feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same 
position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think 
of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no 
wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the 
context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori 
analytical fiction.

Craig


>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] 
> 1/14/2013   
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content -   
> From: Craig Weinberg   
> Receiver: everything-list   
> Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 
> Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects 
> Theory 
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
> Hi Richard Ruquist 
>
> EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. 
> You can capture them with an antenna, etc. 
>
>
> Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? 
>
> From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to 
> the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal 
> waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks 
> like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied 
> organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and 
> optical senses. 
>   
>
>
> I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments,   
> you seem to have some interesting ideas.   
>
> Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves   
> are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light.   
>
>
> Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. 
>
>
> Craig 
>   
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]   
> 1/13/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen   
> - Receiving the following content - 
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11   
> Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory   
>
>
> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify   
> them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and   
> nonphysical.   
> The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap   
> between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger   
> puts it, a dual aspect theory.   
>
> What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum   
> mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the   
> size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at   
> the Planck scale.   
>
> I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle   
> size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it   
> does not rule out MWI.   
>
> But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the   
> Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum   
> Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be   
> used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back   
> instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra   
> worlds of MWI.   
>
> Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So   
> I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of   
> consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are   
> needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any   
> particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each   
> of us possesses similar consciousness.   
>
> Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness   
> investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I   
> base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish   
> almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of   
> consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may   
> differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness.   
> Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source.   
> Richard   
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:   
> > Hi Roger,   
> >   
> > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal 
> dimensions?   
> >   
> >   
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:   
> >>   
> >> Hi everything-list,   
> >>   
> >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI.   
> >> Here's why:   
> >>   
> >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect,   
> >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that qua

Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN

[Richard Ruquist]

Hi Roger Clough,

God is everything, including this list.

Richard David,
"complex variables and quantum theory go together"



On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> God is not righteous by what standards ?  Yours?
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/14/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-13, 08:52:51
> Subject: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Romans 3:10 "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one."
>
> This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account
> for misery in this world.
> Richard
>
> --
> 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: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist  

God is not righteous by what standards ?  Yours? 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/14/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-13, 08:52:51 
Subject: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN 


On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
> Romans 3:10 "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." 

This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account 
for misery in this world. 
Richard 

--  
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: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

[Alberto G. Corona]

THe problem with solar energy is that it is strongly subsidized. Instead of
you being stolen by "monopolistic" energy companies, you can steal the
taxpayer thank to state planning.

Most solar panels are installed because they receive subsidies by KW. As a
logical consequience a boost in production is expected. In fact they
produced electricity even in the night at full level. ... With some help of
 pirate electrogenerators working with fossil fuels, hidden near then. Many
governments, ruined by this authentic robbery or all these ecological
friends of the planet, had to switch the schema of subsidies, to a fixed
schema, that don´t take into account the production.
That foreseeable bureaucratic move had the foreseeable consequences: That
rendered the most productive and expensive and technologically advanced
panels a ruinous investment. Technological development has stopped and
engineers fired. Because the subsidies is independent of production now,
most of them don care to maintain the panels. Most of them do not plug them
to the transmission lines and generate the minimum required of production
 at sun ours with less fossil fuel generators while they receive the solar
subsidies.

According with the subsidies contracts, made at the peak of the bubble,
countries like Spain and Germany have compromises of payment that they will
not have enough money from taxpayers to pay now and in the coming years.
The had to break contracts and reduce subsidies, damaging the credibility
of the judicial system, many best producers lost their investments and only
the worst  had benefits. Most of them, big companies which had contact with
the government  and knew in advance the changes so they reacted accordingly
to have the maximum cost-benefit with the less investment.

Those that were conscious that what the panels produce is not electricity
forever, but suck money from the taxpayers  as long as the subsidy plans
were active, won.

And this is the result of just another wonderful state planning experiment


2013/1/14 Roger Clough 

> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending
> as it is.
>
> But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide.
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/14/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52
> Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
>
>
> Hi Roger
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> I always let the market decide.
>
>
> Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided:
> you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to
> continue stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for
> your friends and family, the people you live with, local interests and
> community, energy independence and profit in long term.
>
> But sure, go ahead, think that gas and utilities prices will keep falling
> as dramatically as they have.
>
> ?
> You can't go wrong that way.
>
>
>
> I doubt Leibniz would agree. Harnessing energy all around us instead of
> burning, drilling etc. is the least materialistic prospect for now,
> concerning energy.
>
> Additionally, both Jesus and numbers of straight market economics over the
> long run, and if you're smart even in short to mid term (I know people who
> are making profit TODAY by mixing their energy needs with contributing
> energy themselves; the moment you can afford to do this, it makes sense
> from any economic point of view), do not cohere with your infallibility
> derived from market + short-term perspective. Also, you could consider
> dealing the most harmful, addictive drugs and/or get into organized crime:
>
> the market has decided these to be very lucrative. But drop the Jesus and
> God talk for now on, because your usage and relationship to personal
> theology seems pretty clear now. Thanks for sharing.
>
> PGC
> --
>
>
> ?
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/13/2013
>
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-12, 11:06:43
> Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
>
>
> Hi Roger,
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Roger Clough ?rote:
>
> The unpredictability of solar energy
>
> ?
>
> I've lost the page ref for the graph below, but it's typical
> of numerous other graphs of the daily variation in solar energy on the
> internet.
> (For a comparison see solar variations on
>
>
> http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2010/01/yearly-water-temps-precip-and-solar-energy.html
> ?)
> ?
>
> The hourly variation would be much worse, since the sun does not shine at
> night.
>
> ?
>
> The variation from da

Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

OK--- in the mind.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/14/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-13, 08:45:18
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory


On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves
> are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light

 Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the
quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO this is
necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI
and Feynman renormalization.
Richard

-- 
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: Re: Re: cognitive therapy

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes  

Same here. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/14/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Telmo Menezes  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-14, 07:42:02 
Subject: Re: Re: cognitive therapy 


Hi Roger, 


Me too - well maybe not as often as I should. I hope it's helping you! 



On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Roger Clough  wrote: 

Hi Telmo Menezes 

Burns' therapy is called "cognitive therapy". ? use it all of the time. 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/14/2013 

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content - 

From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-13, 12:59:38 
Subject: Re: cognitive therapy 


The attachments of the original message is as following: 
? (1). CBT-distortions.pdf 








On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Bruno Marchal ?rote: 


On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:35, Roger Clough wrote: 


Hi Bruno Marchal 

Personally I have found that reading the Bible a little 
and knowing some scripture verse, helps. 


Why not? 

But Chuang-tseu, Lie-tseu, Lao-Tseu, Alan Watts, and even the Baghavad Gita (a 
rather crazy text from the conventional spiritual pov), and many texts can 
help. 



I have a friend who keeps recommending the Bhagavad Gita. Alan Watts is great, 
always makes me feel better. 


An interesting book written by a cognitive therapist is "Feeling Good: the New 
Mood Therapy" by David D. Burns, M.D. There is one study where reading this 
book had the same effectiveness as conventional anti-depressants (both above 
placebo). I'm attaching a pdf based on this work that I refer to from time to 
time. 

? 


But such text should never been taken literally. Only for inspiration. Unless 
they contain reasoning, like in "the question to king Milinda" (one of my 
favorite spiritual text). 




I believe (as did Luther) that the actual words are semi-physical 
and paste themselves in our memories or subconsciousness 
and work on us like cognitive therapy: 

Hebrews 4:12 

"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged 
sword, 
it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges 
the 
thoughts and attitudes of the heart. " 

Luther suffered from time with depression, and found words 
and cognitive therapy very helpful. 


It can be. A lot of plants can help too. 


Yup :) 

? 

Unfortunately, by tolerating prohibition, we assist to an unfair competition 
between nature and artifice, and we have made the state into a drug dealer. In 
the human science we are below being nowhere. We do money from diseases, 
crisis, catastrophes. There is something wrong, and I think it has been 
facilitated by a tradition of artificial lack of rigor in the human sciences 


Why do you think that the lack of rigor in human sciences is artificial? 

? 

, and in the fundamental sciences. 

Bruno 







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/12/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-12, 07:05:18 
Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God 


On 12 Jan 2013, at 11:56, Roger Clough wrote: 



The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. 


Yes. 

That is even why we should never try to convince some others about 
God. We can only trust that God will do that, at the best moment. We 
can teach by example, but not with words, still less with normative 
moral, I think. Hell is really paved with good intentions. God might 
be the good, but the Devil is the "good". 

Bruno 






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/12/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-11, 15:47:58 
Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God 


On 1/11/2013 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
What are its tenets that you believe on faith? 


That there is something different from me. 


But you have evidence for that - if you can figure out what is meant 
by "me". 


I think you need faith to make data into evidence. 

That would vitiate the concept of evidence. I'd say you only need a 
theory to make data into evidence which can count for or against the 
theory. 

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 
. 



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



-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everythin

Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy  

A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending as 
it is. 

But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/14/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52 
Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy 


Hi Roger 


On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough  wrote: 

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

I always let the market decide. 


Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided: you 
can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to continue 
stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for your friends and 
family, the people you live with, local interests and community, energy 
independence and profit in long term. 

But sure, go ahead, think that gas and utilities prices will keep falling as 
dramatically as they have. 

? 
You can't go wrong that way. 



I doubt Leibniz would agree. Harnessing energy all around us instead of 
burning, drilling etc. is the least materialistic prospect for now, concerning 
energy.  

Additionally, both Jesus and numbers of straight market economics over the long 
run, and if you're smart even in short to mid term (I know people who are 
making profit TODAY by mixing their energy needs with contributing energy 
themselves; the moment you can afford to do this, it makes sense from any 
economic point of view), do not cohere with your infallibility derived from 
market + short-term perspective. Also, you could consider dealing the most 
harmful, addictive drugs and/or get into organized crime:  

the market has decided these to be very lucrative. But drop the Jesus and God 
talk for now on, because your usage and relationship to personal theology seems 
pretty clear now. Thanks for sharing. 

PGC 
-- 


? 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/13/2013 

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-12, 11:06:43 
Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy 


Hi Roger, 



On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Roger Clough ?rote: 

The unpredictability of solar energy 

? 

I've lost the page ref for the graph below, but it's typical 
of numerous other graphs of the daily variation in solar energy on the 
internet. 
(For a comparison see solar variations on 

http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2010/01/yearly-water-temps-precip-and-solar-energy.html?)
 
? 

The hourly variation would be much worse, since the sun does not shine at 
night. 

? 

The variation from day to day is unpredicatable and enormous, 

going from?ear 0 Ly to almost 100 Ly. This is probably due to variable 

cloud cover, not auto exhaust emissions. 

? 

I'll stay with conventional electric power, thank you very much. 

? 
? 

? 
? 

Ly. Langley, a measurement of solar energy. One langley is equal to one 
gram-calorie per square centimeter. 
A gram-calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one 
gram of water one degree Celsius. 

? 
? 


Good for you but perhaps bad for your wallet in long term. In Germany, many are 
starting to see that independence from fossil fuel monopolies is not just 
ideological... it turns citizens into energy traders instead of big oil slaves. 

See: 


In Germany, where sensible federal rules have fast-tracked and streamlined the 
permit process, the costs are considerably lower. It can take as little as 
eight days to license and install a solar system on a house in Germany. In the 
United States, depending on your state, the average ranges from 120 to 180 
days. More than one million Germans have installed solar panels on their roofs. 
Australia also has a streamlined permitting process and has solar panels on 10 
percent of its homes. Solar photovoltaic power would give America the potential 
to challenge the utility monopolies, democratize energy generation and 
transform millions of homes and small businesses into energy generators. 
Rational, market-based rules could turn every American into an energy 
entrepreneur. That transition to renewable power could create millions of 
domestic jobs and power in this country with American resourcefulness, 
initiative and entrepreneurial energy while taking a substantial bite out of 
the nation? emissions of greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/opinion/solar-panels-for-every-home.html?_r=0 

It's really not an ideological green vs. conservative matter. People just don't 
like being stolen from. 

The energy monopolies "thank YOUR wallet very much", as for solar panel users, 
we don't care if people have ideological axes to grind for which they want to 
pay, i

Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg  

Why not ? There are gravitational waves.
But earthquakes usually initiate waves
by the sudden release of potential energy.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/14/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory 




On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Richard Ruquist

EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime.
You can capture them with an antenna, etc.


Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? 

>From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the 
>waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in 
>empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one 
>sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks 
>like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. 
  


I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments,  
you seem to have some interesting ideas.  

Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves  
are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light.  


Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. 


Craig 
  



[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
1/13/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11  
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory  


EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify  
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and  
nonphysical.  
The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap  
between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger  
puts it, a dual aspect theory.  

What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum  
mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the  
size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at  
the Planck scale.  

I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle  
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it  
does not rule out MWI.  

But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the  
Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum  
Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be  
used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back  
instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra  
worlds of MWI.  

Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So  
I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of  
consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are  
needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any  
particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each  
of us possesses similar consciousness.  

Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness  
investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I  
base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish  
almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of  
consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may  
differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness.  
Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source.  
Richard  


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:  
> Hi Roger,  
>  
> How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions?  
>  
>  
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:  
>>  
>> Hi everything-list,  
>>  
>> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI.  
>> Here's why:  
>>  
>> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect,  
>> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves  
>> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic.  
>>  
>> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed  
>> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave  
>> and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird  
>> happening.  
>>  
>> My own view is that the weirdness arises because the  
>> waves and the photons are residents of two completely  
>> different but interpenetrating worlds, where:  
>>  
>> 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world,  
>> where by physical I mean (along with Descartes)  
>> "extended in space",  
>>  
>> 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of  
>> the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no  
>> extension in space.  
>>  
>> Under these conditions, there is no need  
>> to create an additional physical world, since each  
>> can exist 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist  

I believe that quantum waves are nonphysical.  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/12/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-11, 14:07:13 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted 
frombrainsviaacomputer 


Right. Monads are below the quantum level and you have argued, 
correctly I think, that not even quantum waves are physical. However, 
monads may have a complex structure as you say below  and 
string theory derives what that complex structure looks like including 
the super EM flux that may be what strings are made of. 

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
> Hi Richard Ruquist 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of 
> product of EM waves. 
> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 1/11/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content - 
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 
> Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from 
> brainsviaacomputer 
> 
> 
> Yes, Roger. 
> 
> They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. 
> Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, 
> there are 6^500 different types of monads. 
> Richard 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>> Hi Craig Weinberg 
>> 
>> Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. 
>> 
>> 
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
>> 1/11/2013 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> From: Craig Weinberg 
>> Receiver: everything-list 
>> Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 
>> Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains 
>> viaacomputer 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>> On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>> On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
>> Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and 
>> use whatever definitions of "intelligent" and "complex" you want). 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under 
>> my definition. 
>> 
>> But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of 
>> intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of 
>> consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with 
>> the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about 
>> consciousness? 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> 
>> I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The 
>> ability to know "what's going on"'. 
>> 
>> This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication 
>> of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a 
>> computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic 
>> intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has 
>> everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of 
>> awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared 
>> enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring 
>> what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in 
>> experience. 
>> 
>> 
>> Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its 
>> environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the 
>> ability and motives to act on them. 
>> 
>> 
>> Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be 
>> interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world 
>> to the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells 
>> that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots 
>> to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to 
>> really have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity 
>> or potential for that opportunity. 
>> 
>> The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a 
>

Re: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

OK, He would work.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/12/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-11, 13:54:47
Subject: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.


Hi Rog,
Crystals are not gases- req'd for Charles law to apply.
Rich

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there.
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/11/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-10, 12:22:44
> Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
>
>
> wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an
> experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when
> heated.
>
> Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most
> materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid.
> Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero.
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
>>> > ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )
>>>
>>> Wrong
>>>
>>
>> According to Charle? law and the consequence of the
>> third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
>> of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
>> approaches zero too.
>>
>> ===?
>>
>> --
>> 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.

Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer

[Richard Ruquist]

Right. Monads are below the quantum level and you have argued,
correctly I think, that not even quantum waves are physical. However,
monads may have a complex structure as you say below  and
string theory derives what that complex structure looks like including
the super EM flux that may be what strings are made of.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
>
> For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of
> product of EM waves.
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/11/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from 
> brainsviaacomputer
>
>
> Yes, Roger.
>
> They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds.
> Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux,
> there are 6^500 different types of monads.
> Richard
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex.
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/11/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Craig Weinberg
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47
>> Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains 
>> viaacomputer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and 
>> use whatever definitions of "intelligent" and "complex" you want).
>>
>>
>>
>> A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under 
>> my definition.
>>
>> But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of 
>> intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of 
>> consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with 
>> the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The 
>> ability to know "what's going on"'.
>>
>> This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication 
>> of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a 
>> computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic 
>> intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has 
>> everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of 
>> awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared 
>> enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring 
>> what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in 
>> experience.
>>
>>
>> Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its 
>> environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the 
>> ability and motives to act on them.
>>
>>
>> Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be 
>> interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world 
>> to the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells 
>> that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots 
>> to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to 
>> really have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity 
>> or potential for that opportunity.
>>
>> The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a 
>> machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever 
>> it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of 
>> something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its 
>> sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of 
>> 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes 
>> a tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content 
>> of all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our 
>> sense and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at 
>> all.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> 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/-/pf0w53nZsoMJ.
>> 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:/

Re: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?

[Richard Ruquist]

BEC condensates may contain any kind of particle, not just physicsl
particles. However, we presume that the mathematics is more or less
the same for all BECs and therefore we can come to understand BECs
with physical experiments. Presumably monads are particles, seeing
that they are discrete and separate.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> The monads are not BEC's, because presumably BECs are physical.
> Monads aren't
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/11/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-10, 11:47:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
>
> Well Roger,
>
> Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to.
>
> Think of the number infinities in terms of a
> static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU.
>
> The number infinities exist in the monad relationships
> at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU
> One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space.
>
> "A". Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these
> infinities,
> The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields
> are variations in the density of the infinities
> of the monad number relationships.
>
> "B". Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space.
> The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles
> including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and
> digital.
>
> Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow.
> Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow.
> resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls.
>
> The collapse problem is to get from A to B.
> "A" happens in the analog Mind space
> where the number infinities are continuous.
>
> Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC
> where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction,
> we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly.
>
> But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities,
> except those at the point of interaction,
> to be normalized or cancelled.
>
> Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities.
> That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities
> to collapse to every possible quantum particle
> that could be created by the interaction.
> Apparently the Mind has the same ability.
>
> He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one
> by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future.
> So only one particle becomes physical.
>
> (If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can)
>
> Because in a Block Universe there is no future.
> There is no time or consciousness.
> nothing is happening.
>
> Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU,
> where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective.
> There is still no time or consciousness.
>
> Time is created when "conscious free will" choices
> force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS.
>
> The hard problem is knowing
> where "conscious free will" comes from.
>
> It could come from Godelian incompleteness
> or it could come from biological complexity
> exceeding the universal calculational capacity,
>
> But in the end the magic of consciousness
> requires a 1p leap of faith.
>
>
> NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles
> continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled,
> So it is one or the other.
>
>
> yanniru
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>
>> Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ?
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/10/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Richard Ruquist
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00
>> Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
 Bruno,

 Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment,
 space itself does not exist (is nonphysical).
>>>
>>>
>>> Space-time remains physical, here.
>>>
>>>
 There is no aether.
 Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all,
 suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are
 nonphysical.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then all forces are non physical.
>>>
>>> But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are
>>> using.
>>> All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete
>>> number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as
>>> stable
>>> and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can we say

Re: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

The monads are not BEC's, because presumably BECs are physical.
Monads aren't


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/11/2013 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-10, 11:47:26
Subject: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?


Well Roger,

Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to.

Think of the number infinities in terms of a
static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU.

The number infinities exist in the monad relationships
at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU
One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space.

"A". Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities,
The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields
are variations in the density of the infinities
of the monad number relationships.

"B". Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space.
The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles
including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital.

Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow.
Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow.
resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls.

The collapse problem is to get from A to B.
"A" happens in the analog Mind space
where the number infinities are continuous.

Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC
where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction,
we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly.

But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities,
except those at the point of interaction,
to be normalized or cancelled.

Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities.
That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities
to collapse to every possible quantum particle
that could be created by the interaction.
Apparently the Mind has the same ability.

He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one
by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future.
So only one particle becomes physical.

(If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can)

Because in a Block Universe there is no future.
There is no time or consciousness.
nothing is happening.

Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU,
where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective.
There is still no time or consciousness.

Time is created when "conscious free will" choices
force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS.

The hard problem is knowing
where "conscious free will" comes from.

It could come from Godelian incompleteness
or it could come from biological complexity
exceeding the universal calculational capacity,

But in the end the magic of consciousness
requires a 1p leap of faith.


NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles
continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled,
So it is one or the other.


yanniru





On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ?
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/10/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00
> Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>> Bruno,
>>>
>>> Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment,
>>> space itself does not exist (is nonphysical).
>>
>>
>> Space-time remains physical, here.
>>
>>
>>> There is no aether.
>>> Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all,
>>> suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are
>>> nonphysical.
>>
>>
>> Then all forces are non physical.
>>
>> But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are
>> using.
>> All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete
>> number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as
>> stable
>> and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>
> Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
> that are full of "infinities of discrete number relations"
> and that a "flux density of infinities" can flow between them.
> Or is that overboard?
> Richard
> points and lines
> word geometry?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/9/2013
>>> "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@googlegrou

Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist  


For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of
product of EM waves. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/11/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 
Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from 
brainsviaacomputer 


Yes, Roger. 

They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. 
Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, 
there are 6^500 different types of monads. 
Richard 

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
> Hi Craig Weinberg 
> 
> Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. 
> 
> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 1/11/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> - Receiving the following content - 
> From: Craig Weinberg 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 
> Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains 
> viaacomputer 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
> On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
> On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
> Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and 
> use whatever definitions of "intelligent" and "complex" you want). 
> 
> 
> 
> A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my 
> definition. 
> 
> But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of 
> intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of 
> consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with 
> the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? 
> 
> Brent 
> 
> 
> I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The 
> ability to know "what's going on"'. 
> 
> This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication 
> of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a 
> computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic 
> intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has 
> everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness 
> as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, 
> progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, 
> which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. 
> 
> 
> Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its 
> environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the 
> ability and motives to act on them. 
> 
> 
> Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be 
> interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world to 
> the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells 
> that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots 
> to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to really 
> have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity or 
> potential for that opportunity. 
> 
> The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a 
> machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever 
> it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of 
> something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its 
> sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of 
> 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes a 
> tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content of 
> all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our sense 
> and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at all. 
> 
> Craig 
> 
> 
> 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/-/pf0w53nZsoMJ. 
> 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy  

"Tentative meaning" would be more suitable than the word "opinion." 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/9/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-08, 11:07:17 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


Hi Roger, 


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough  wrote: 

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy  
? 
Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone. 
? 


How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly separating 
the information and data from opinion and beliefs? 

If you have, please share and if not:? this is straw man, that can't even stand 
on its pole.  

I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna land; 
it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and can't 
complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted, with McKenna 
that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things become 
"distasteful" in your words.  

Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why 
would you listen to some guy that takes that "distasteful drug advocate" 
seriously?  
PGC 

--  
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: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Hi Roger,

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.
>
>

How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly
separating the information and data from opinion and beliefs?

If you have, please share and if not:  this is straw man, that can't even
stand on its pole.

I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna
land; it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and
can't complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted,
with McKenna that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things
become "distasteful" in your words.

Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why
would you listen to some guy that takes that "distasteful drug advocate"
seriously?
PGC

-- 
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.