Re: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
Hi John Clark Apparently you fear you will not be able to tell which is true-- and in what cases-- 17th cent philosophical statements or modern science. As a rule of thumb you might be skeptical about some statements of 17th century philosophers on science. But in some other cases one of them is correct. Which group ? Think. Think. Think. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 11:37:36 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: ? The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought irrelevant What on earth? are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and Leibniz were not the sum total of human thought even 300 years ago when they wrote their stuff, much less today. in the face of the achievements of recent physics Yes, the idea that these people could teach a modern physicist anything about the nature of matter is idiotic. Is it possible that the architects of the pyramids might have known something that the architects of large hotels don't? No. And the reasons to build a modern hotel were much much better than the reasons to build a big stone pyramid 4500 years ago were. And the hotels were successful in doing what they were built to do, giving thousands of people shelter when they were in a foreign city; the pyramids were built to protect the body of the Pharaoh for eternity but in every case they were looted by grave robbers within a decade of their completion.? ? ? Could Shakespeare know something about writing in English that J.K. Rowling doesn't? The difference between art and science is that there is only one correct scientific theory, we may not ever find it but over the years we get closer and closer to it, and there is a objective standard to tell the difference between a good theory and a bad one; but in art there is not just one good book and the difference between a good one and a bad one is subjective. Personally I enjoy the writing of J.K. Rowling? more than that of Shakespeare because I don't know Elizabethan English and Shakespeare didn't know modern English, but J.K. Rowling does. But I'm talking about art so that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary. The philosophers who you dismiss have a lot more to do with why you know the words cause and effect than does the work of any contemporary physicist. Bullshit, Hume and Leibniz knew nothing about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, and even if they did I'm quite certain they would not have liked it, but the universe doesn't care what the preferences of 2 members of the species Homo sapiens are, the world just keeps behaving that way anyway and if those people don't like it they can lump it. They formulated the way that we think about it to this day, far more successfully I might add, then the muddle of conflicting interpretations and shoulder shrugging mysticism that has come out of quantum mechanics. They were successful in formulating ideas that seemed intuitively true to most people, but unfortunately nature found the ideas much less intuitive than people do. Philosophers churned out ideas that seemed reasonable but it turned out the Universe didn't give a damn about being reasonable or if human beings thought the way it operated was crazy or not. Those philosophers said things that made people comfortable but that's just not the way things are and being fat dumb and happy is no way to live your life. I don't care much for elevating the past either, but the more I see of the originality and vision of philosophers Originality and vision philosophers may have had but they were also dead wrong.? Regardless of how appealing those philosophers ideas were if they don't fit the facts they have to go because just one stubborn fact can destroy even the most beautiful theory. ? 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. -- 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: There is no such thing as cause and effect
Hi Craig Weinberg Lord of the Flies is basically the conservative view put forth by Hobbes (and Paul). At root we are criminals. Welfare is essentially the leftist view put forth by Rousseau. At root we are saints. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 00:40:00 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life of the country. seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well. Richard OK, let us confiscate all capital and distribute it evenly to every one. Then what? then we have democracy? No, because people always congregate into groups, it is their nature. And from there it is Lord of the Flies all over. It has happened many times before. Why do we never learn? I think that's why Jefferson was keen on periodic revolutions. If inequality is inevitable though, it makes sense to mediate that tendency to some extent if we can, rather than giving carte blanche to the winning savages. It's like saying we should learn that there is always crime so why bother with police. Isn't civilization based upon the effort to tame our innate tendencies toward self interest? Or at least to agree to conspire against the barbarians outside of the walls. wouldn't even need to confiscate all capital, and I don't think that anyone is suggesting that. Just make hoarding wealth more expensive. Sure! A tax credit for investing. Oh way, that already exists! It is why the investment tax is so low as it is! Investing in guaranteed payouts is what makes hoarding of wealth possible. Why would we want to give tax breaks for the wealthy to find ways of taking more money out of the economy faster? At the plutocrat level, you should be rewarded only for investing in non-profit enterprises that lose money. Being able to invest huge amounts of money, especially unearned money from a dynastic fortune, is a privilege that should be taxed, not rewarded. Maybe follow the Scandinavian model on a trial basis for 20 years in a handful of cities. Scandinavia is a bad place to build a model because it has a homogeneous population. Such populations behave, on average, very different from highly diverse populations. Segregation into polarized groups happens much slower in homogenous populations. You might check out the meme flow in such conditions, its amazing. If by homogeneous you mean financially homogeneous, then a plan which tilts the economy in favor of the middle class should by definition make any place into a more homogeneous society - in which case the Scandinavian model would be expected to perform as it does for them now. If you are talking about anything else, then I suspect it's just a coded racism. This country was built in large part by slaves. We exploit poor migrant workers. There may not be a choice ultimately for us but to choose whether to become slaves and disposable workers ourselves (assuming we are not already) in a feudal plantation-prison society or to settle the score and go after those who continue to benefit the most from the system as it is. In any case, there is no reason to think that experimenting with a Scandinavian type system, or even Canadian, British, etc, when it comes to health care would not be better than what we have now. The biggest problem is that our political assumptions are unfalsifiable. No matter how far our standard of living plummets and how the far-too-rich get richer at everyone else's expense, it can always be suggested that it could be worse had we not done what we did. Only through experimentation in a scientific way will we ever learn anything. Craig Craig -- -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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/-/TCkITfdw-KcJ. 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
Re: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
Hi Bruno Marchal In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs a subject. In 2) you left out the our. Consciousness needs a subject. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 11:06:47 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down. ? Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity can be falsfied: you drop the apple and gravity pulls it up. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough definition of consciousness, you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as a subject: Cs = subject + object If you don't include the subject, then: Cs = object which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole. I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there are none. But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on some principles about it. To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to agree with this: 1) that you are conscious (or that the humans are conscious) 2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change made at *some* description level of the brain or body or local environment or even some physical universe. All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on 1) and 2). 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. Hi Richard Ruquist There is no god in comp. Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by 1) what is responsible for our existence 2) so big as to be beyond nameability Then there is a God in comp. Of course if you define God by white giant with a beard, and sitting on a cloud, then you are very plausibly right. A little more on this in my reply to Richard. Bruno 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 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: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs a subject. In 2) you left out the our. Consciousness needs a subject. Consciousness needs a subjective point of view but if you think of how we experience being deeply engrossed in a movie or book, or how we 'lose ourselves' in Flow states, it seems that the necessity of a subject in the human sense is an open question - although the existence of human subjectivity certainly suggests that such a subject is inherently possible through consciousness. I remember having dreams in which I was not present, but rather just aware of events and people as they were interacting. Not even a voyeur, but no sense of there being anything other than the people and their activities. Maybe dream consciousness doesn't qualify as consciousness, but that's a separate semantic issue. It could also be the case that such dreams and self-transcendence are only possible as an a posteriori imagination which arises from a fully formed human self...hard to know. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-09-03, 11:06:47 *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down. ? Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity can be falsfied: you drop the apple and gravity pulls it up. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough definition of consciousness, you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as a subject: Cs = subject + object If you don't include the subject, then: Cs = object which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole. I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there are none. But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on some principles about it. To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to agree with this: 1) that you are conscious (or that the humans are conscious) 2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change made at *some* description level of the brain or body or local environment or even some physical universe. All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on 1) and 2). 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. Hi Richard Ruquist There is no god in comp. Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by 1) what is responsible for our existence 2) so big as to be beyond nameability Then there is a God in comp. Of course if you define God by white giant with a beard, and sitting on a cloud, then you are very plausibly right. A little more on this in my reply to Richard. Bruno 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 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: There is no such thing as cause and effect
Hi Craig Weinberg I'm not talking about subjectivity in everyday terms, but rather in logical terms. Cs = subject + object Where's the subject ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 08:28:48 Subject: Re: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal ? In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs a subject. In 2) you left out the our.? Consciousness needs a subject. Consciousness needs a subjective point of view but if you think of how we experience being deeply engrossed in a movie or book, or how we 'lose ourselves' in Flow states, it seems that the necessity of a subject in the human sense is an open question - although the existence of human subjectivity certainly suggests that such a subject is inherently possible through consciousness. I remember having dreams in which I was not present, but rather just aware of events and people as they were interacting. Not even a voyeur, but no sense of there being anything other than the people and their activities. Maybe dream consciousness doesn't qualify as consciousness, but that's a separate semantic issue. It could also be the case that such dreams and self-transcendence are only possible as an a posteriori imagination which arises from a fully formed human self...hard to know. Craig ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 11:06:47 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb ? I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down. ? Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity can be falsfied: you drop the apple and gravity pulls it up. Hi Bruno Marchal ? IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough definition of consciousness, you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as a subject: ? Cs = subject + object ? If you don't include the subject, then: ? ? Cs = object ? ? which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole. I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there are none. But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on some principles about it.? To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to agree with this: 1) that you are conscious (or that the humans ?re conscious) 2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change made at *some* description level of the brain or body or local environment or even some physical universe. All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on 1) and 2).? 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately ?oesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve.? A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. Hi Richard Ruquist ? There is no god in comp. Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by? 1) what is responsible for our existence 2) so big as to be beyond nameability Then there is a God in comp. Of course if you define God by white giant with a beard, and sitting on a cloud, then you are very plausibly right. A little more on this in my reply to Richard. Bruno 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 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
Re: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO God is the All, or better said, the uncreated intelligence behind all creation. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 10:28:05 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote: Bruno wrote: ... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by 1) what is responsible for our existence 2) so big as to be beyond nameability Then there is a God in comp... Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the G O D word in a sense paraphrasable (by me) into an imaginary description 'what we cannot even imagine'? Hmm... OK. (- believed mostly in the 'religious-biblical(?)' format of the following part of your post: ...Of course if you define God by white giant with a beard, and sitting on a cloud, ... ) Such word-play would have not much merit in reasonable thinking. It would not counteract the 'faith-based' religious superstition now so widely spread among many human minds. That was not the goal. Bruno John M On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable. For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down. ? Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity can be falsfied: you drop the apple and gravity pulls it up. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough definition of consciousness, you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as a subject: Cs = subject + object If you don't include the subject, then: Cs = object which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole. I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there are none. But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on some principles about it. To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to agree with this: 1) that you are conscious (or that the humans are conscious) 2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change made at *some* description level of the brain or body or local environment or even some physical universe. All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on 1) and 2). 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. Hi Richard Ruquist There is no god in comp. Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by 1) what is responsible for our existence 2) so big as to be beyond nameability Then there is a God in comp. Of course if you define God by white giant with a beard, and sitting on a cloud, then you are very plausibly right. A little more on this in my reply to Richard. Bruno 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 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. 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 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: There is no such thing as cause and effect
Anybody who believes that we are all born equal probably doesn't have any children. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 15:29:14 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. I'm not sure what is meant by 'taxing the rich doesn't ultimately work'? If it means it doesn't produce equality and prosperity, I'd agree. But in the U.S. the tax rate paid by the rich has been higher (even much higher) in the past and at the same time there was prosperity and economic growth. Now the rich (by which I mean people who live comfortably solely on their investments) pay a lower tax rate than the poorest working person. So 'taxing the rich' can certainly work in the sense of fairness. 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.
