Re: Scientific journals
On 20 Apr 2013, at 15:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. Logic? Indeed. It can't. But logic can't realize the deeper issue of Turing universality either. If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Then you stop doing science. (You might never have begun, to be sure). Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. As an extensional function? You are right. But computer science is mainly the study of intensional function. Programs are not functions. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc. But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer. If the computer maintain the children or some ancestors alive, they might do. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. If you say so ... I do. I see. Bruno Craig Bruno It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of
Re: Scientific journals
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. :) PGC Lovely :) Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music: http://reglos.de/musinum/ Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate rich music, if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :) The richest I guess. Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2. http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers): http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits. Thanks for these examples. I collect them, not caring much if the author is scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC Bruno 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. -- 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: Scientific journals
On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. :) PGC Lovely :) Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music: http://reglos.de/musinum/ Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate rich music, if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :) The richest I guess. Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2. http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers): http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits. Thanks for these examples. I collect them, not caring much if the author is scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC May be you should. It is easy to guess that there are less inadequate statements made by Donald Duck than in the huge impact factor journals. Huge impact factor means only that stupidities might spread more quickly. And peer reviewing might mean we have to wait for the peers' death to get the new news. Löbian, too much Löbian! Bruno Bruno 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. -- 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. 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:35:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 15:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. Logic? Indeed. It can't. But logic can't realize the deeper issue of Turing universality either. Even if they have the same depth, that doesn't mean they are in the same ocean. Why doesn't logic apply to Turing universality though? What room does a Turing emulation have to change from numbers into flavors? If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Then you stop doing science. (You might never have begun, to be sure). Only if I'm wrong. If I am right, and experience is ontology itself, then science must adapt, not me. Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. As an extensional function? You are right. But computer science is mainly the study of intensional function. Programs are not functions. Whatever terms you like, but experience makes no sense as a consequence of a program or intensional arithmetic incantation. You are attaching experience to it because of your own first person experience, but there is no bridge to aesthetic experience from programs going the other way. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is
Re: Scientific journals
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. :) PGC Lovely :) Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music: http://reglos.de/musinum/ Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate rich music, if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :) The richest I guess. Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2. http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers): http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits. Thanks for these examples. I collect them, not caring much if the author is scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC May be you should. It is easy to guess that there are less inadequate statements made by Donald Duck than in the huge impact factor journals. Huge impact factor means only that stupidities might spread more quickly. And peer reviewing might mean we have to wait for the peers' death to get the new news. Löbian, too much Löbian! Bruno Wait a moment! You did not, like proper logic police-machine* , ask what my blood-alcohol levels were at the time I made the statement! Not fair! It's Sunday Bruno, and I had too much wine this lunch + afternoon. Sometimes hard drugs like alcohol make some machines wishfully think that huge impact journal and Donald can be trusted to the same degree. And before you start statements of the sort I don't know if you'll convince the judge: it is a minor offense, no harm in local platonia, the judge will dismiss the case as trivial. PGC Bruno 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. -- 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. 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. -- 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: Scientific journals
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:15:02 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: I do. Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. I don't dispute that the aesthetics of music are enhanced by musicians who understanding harmony mathematically. I don't know that understanding the mathematical aspects of music unambiguously improves a listener's experience - it might, but seems unimportant. It's not important and mostly even the contrary: because music theoreticians can identify structures and classify them, they think they know these structures and can distinguish in some absolute sense trivial music from its opposite. This arrogance is common. My idea bout music and math is that math is not inherently musical, and that music is more than mathematics. Mathematics is more than a reductionist view of it. Both math and music seem to me infinitely vast and happen to correspond on many levels, especially on number relations relating to other number relations. There is no question that math and music are intertwined, and that intertwining is significant to the point that it is worthy of a Platonic-divine esteem. My issue is that as intertwined as they are, there is no mathematical reason that math itself would generate any kind of aesthetic experience. Simply: joy of relating infinite relations. No reductions, no substitutions, no discount, offer available for infinite eternity only. Why would math enjoy itself as music? Same as above. If it is the complexity and sophistication of the data which is being 'enjoyed' as music, It isn't. why wouldn't that complexity be experienced just as effectively as it is, with no suddenly-appearing experiential abstraction layer on top of it? In music, theoretical knowledge does not lead to more effective experience; I just illustrated why somebody versed in music theory might even have her/his capacity to enjoy music limited by that very knowledge. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=YRD4gb0p5RMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. Haha, cool. I'm not disagreeing with you though about the mathematical nature of music, I am disagreeing that music can be generated purely by computation. I cannot play a single note without counting or computing relative numbers (be it formal music theory; or just intuitive numbers of frets, keys, notes, buttons, steps, counting rhythm etc.). Once music exists, you can certainly use mathematics to enhance music (not as easy as it seems like it should be though...a lot of digital music seems pretty anesthetic to me. If music never existed, however, I do not think that you could create it using math alone. Math has something to offer to music - the formality of math and its structural insights in music theory certainly increases musical knowledge, intuition, appreciation, musicianship, etc. Maybe even songwriting too, who knows? What does music have to offer math though? What does math need from music? It's a false problem imho because I don't take the domain specificity of Music vs. Maths as literally as you. Not because I want to win an argument with you, but because I couldn't play a single song, without thinking in notes and their relations (intervals we say), key's, harmonies, melodies, iteration of groove, tuning. Now, you strip all the formal stuff away and assume I'm autodidact: I'll still be forced to think, like I did as a beginner, first note, 4th string, 5th fret, 2nd finger to second note/chord with 2nd finger etc. which will train my ear in time to distinguish finer and finer relations and possibilities, even without formal training, so I might not be able to name say a chord or analyze its function, but I will be able to communicate to other musicians a complex formal arrangement by giving the sequence with first this sound with this rhythm then this like this, then 2 x this, then repeat 1st part, then vary part 2 but with this transition; which is still full of numbers fundamentally, even without the jargon. That's why I can't distinguish numeric relations from music as easily. No culture could make music without agreeing on some rhythm counting- or pitch system based on the fundamental tone and all tones around it. With most music, there's A LOT of counting going on for the listeners' aesthetic experience. PGC Craig :) PGC -- You received this message because you
Re: Scientific journals
On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian- Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q- p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. If you say so ... Bruno It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense or a fixed uniformity of sense rather than the eternal fertility of aesthetic sense. We do run on machines, and we run machines, but machines run on sense. That is not a valid argument. I would agree, but that wasn't my argument. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno John K Clark -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: Scientific journals
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc. But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. If you say so ... I do. Craig Bruno It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense or a fixed uniformity of sense rather than the eternal fertility of aesthetic sense. We do run on machines, and we run machines, but machines run on sense. That is not a valid argument. I would agree, but that wasn't my argument. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: Scientific journals
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc. But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. If you say so ... I do. Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in
Re: Scientific journals
On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc. But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. If you say so ... I do. Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense:
Re: Scientific journals
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:15:02 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc. But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. If you say so ... I do. Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. I don't dispute that the aesthetics of music are enhanced by musicians who
Re: Scientific journals
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian- Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q- p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. You do a lot of mistake in logic. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. That is not a valid argument. Bruno Craig Bruno John K Clark -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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. 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense or a fixed uniformity of sense rather than the eternal fertility of aesthetic sense. We do run on machines, and we run machines, but machines run on sense. That is not a valid argument. I would agree, but that wasn't my argument. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno John K Clark -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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
Re: Scientific journals
On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical points with somebody for over a year to find out that there is not the slightest possibility of logic making any change whatsoever in their beliefs. This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first person indeterminacy. I have no trouble understanding first person indeterminacy. I (the first person) don't know with certainty (indeterminacy) what I am going to see next and even if I did I wouldn't be certain what I would do next until I did it. All that is crystal clear, however you claimed to have found a new sort of indeterminacy unrelated to Quantum Mechanics or what Godel or Turing found, and despite your repeated efforts I was unable to understand that at all. With some embarrassment I admit that there have been times in my life when I pretended to understand something when really I did not, but I can honestly say that except maybe for a short time as a joke I can't recall even one time that I pretended not to understand something when really I did. Some would say I'm stupid enough as it is and don't need to pretend to be any dumber than I am. The FIP does not require neither Gödel, nor the quantum. It is a simple consequence of the possibility of the duplicability of machine, and of the definition of first person that I gave in the comp frame. It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian- Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q- p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. Bruno John K Clark -- 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. 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical points with somebody for over a year to find out that there is not the slightest possibility of logic making any change whatsoever in their beliefs. This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first person indeterminacy. I have no trouble understanding first person indeterminacy. I (the first person) don't know with certainty (indeterminacy) what I am going to see next and even if I did I wouldn't be certain what I would do next until I did it. All that is crystal clear, however you claimed to have found a new sort of indeterminacy unrelated to Quantum Mechanics or what Godel or Turing found, and despite your repeated efforts I was unable to understand that at all. With some embarrassment I admit that there have been times in my life when I pretended to understand something when really I did not, but I can honestly say that except maybe for a short time as a joke I can't recall even one time that I pretended not to understand something when really I did. Some would say I'm stupid enough as it is and don't need to pretend to be any dumber than I am. The FIP does not require neither Gödel, nor the quantum. It is a simple consequence of the possibility of the duplicability of machine, and of the definition of first person that I gave in the comp frame. It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? Craig Bruno John K Clark -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On 16 Apr 2013, at 17:36, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. Told you so. OK OK I admit it, you were right. But it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical points with somebody for over a year to find out that there is not the slightest possibility of logic making any change whatsoever in their beliefs. This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first person indeterminacy. It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. Bruno And now I am curious and a little worried about the people on this list, how many agree with Mr. Craig Weinberg and think that Uranus is in tension with rationalism because of the Saturnian-Uranian co- rulership of Aquarius in their combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun in the Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce? If anyone does agree with that they would do me a great favor by saying so now, that way I won't waste my time with you in the future. Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. EXCELLENT! I wish I'd said that. John K Clark -- 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. 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:09:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical points with somebody for over a year to find out that there is not the slightest possibility of logic making any change whatsoever in their beliefs. This is exactly what I and some others thought, and said, about your posts when you pretend to not understand, or to refute, the first person indeterminacy. I have no trouble understanding first person indeterminacy. I (the first person) don't know with certainty (indeterminacy) what I am going to see next and even if I did I wouldn't be certain what I would do next until I did it. All that is crystal clear, however you claimed to have found a new sort of indeterminacy unrelated to Quantum Mechanics or what Godel or Turing found, and despite your repeated efforts I was unable to understand that at all. With some embarrassment I admit that there have been times in my life when I pretended to understand something when really I did not, but I can honestly say that except maybe for a short time as a joke I can't recall even one time that I pretended not to understand something when really I did. Some would say I'm stupid enough as it is and don't need to pretend to be any dumber than I am. It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I can see why astrological terms would frighten you, but they are no different from any other specialized language. I will try to translate if it will make you feel any better: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. = embody the inherent conflict within the rational futurist personality between its rebellious-pioneering-genius impulses and its reverent, intensely disciplined impulses. With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun = They are guys who like open challenges, have issues with their emotions but also natural leadership skills. These are people who are emotionally reluctant to interact with the public, but excel in the public role that they play. The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisces = Strong themes of maturity and suffering. The personality here is like stones worn smooth by the ocean. Devotion, sacrifice, melancholy...heavy concerns, serious lives contributing to events with looong term consequences. There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. = Numerology is simple. Things with four sides have a certain, shall we say, stability to them, do they not? Doors, walls, windows, tables... squares and rectangles are good for reliable, utilitarian purposes. Numerology takes these kinds of intuitions about numbers and refines them to a very specific degree, mapping them to the letters of the alphabet - which also have inherent personalities when you examine them intensely. This is nothing but a heightened appreciation for the qualities of numbers and a projection of that appreciation onto names and birthdates. The amazing thing is that, confirmation bias or no, doing this yields consistently insightful views on personality. Astrology is the same but using the geometric relations which arise from the periodicity of the planets. It could be tree rings or ice cores, or anything that has a long term history of repetition and variation, but the planetary motions are ideal because they lend themselves to these signifying configurations. The archetypes of the zodiac do not necessarily have anything to do with the planets, they just fall out naturally from intuitive reflection. The logic that makes 1 independent, bold, and creative and 4 orderly and utilitarian, makes this zodiacal sequence of action-reaction-transaction X 4 a perpetual resource for archetypal insights. I found, for instance, that they can be
Re: Scientific journals
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. Told you so. OK OK I admit it, you were right. But it is disconcerting to learn that after trying to make logical points with somebody for over a year to find out that there is not the slightest possibility of logic making any change whatsoever in their beliefs. And now I am curious and a little worried about the people on this list, how many agree with Mr. Craig Weinberg and think that Uranus is in tension with rationalism because of the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius in their combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun in the Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce? If anyone does agree with that they would do me a great favor by saying so now, that way I won't waste my time with you in the future. Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. EXCELLENT! I wish I'd said that. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Monday, April 15, 2013 12:01:37 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. That's your version of science in a nutshell. No curiosity, no reasoned argument, just name calling and cowardice. Craig John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On 4/15/2013 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. John K Clark Told you so. Brent Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. --- Anonymous -- 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: Scientific journals
On Monday, April 15, 2013 3:48:17 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 4/15/2013 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. John K Clark Told you so. I am very pleased to be held in low esteem by minds such as yours. Craig Brent Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. --- Anonymous -- 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: Scientific journals
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. Hitler's birthday was April 20, so was soul singer Luther Vandross and actor George (Mr. Sulu) Takei. Einstein's birthday was March 14, so was Dr. Seuss and Billy Crystal. Leo (War and Peace) Tolstoy and Honey Boo Boo were both born on August 28, and Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both born at exactly the same time, same day same year. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. They would be a lot more impressive if these predictions had been made before the moon landings and assassination not after. It's easy to make predictions after the fact. And I stand by what I said before, after these embarrassingly stupid comments I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On 14 Apr 2013, at 01:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine asserts things like that. The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp conclusion or prejudice. So if self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things that I do, what about the self-referentially correct machines can assert similar things to what Bruno asserts? If one machine claims that the other machine's reports are self-referential artifacts, then how can you say that self-referentially correct machines assert anything in particular? Where are you getting the sense of machine consensus when comp would mean that humans, often incapable of consensus, would contribute evidence to support or contradict any position or belief? When a machine is self-referentially correct, it is always relative to some other universal machine. That is why in the formal theory we must start from one Turing universal system, like (N, +, *). Also, a belief can be both self-referential and referential. In I see the moon, there is a simultaneous reference and self-reference. Both can be correct. About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only. Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. If you aren't interested, then go on assuming that it is idiotic, it makes no difference to me. Give me any date, and any program doing a chart from a date, and I will give you *many* examples which fits. To make your point, you must not look at the chart of a small sample of people by date, but on a rather large sample. Now, if this has been done, give me the references. Because statistics can be misused very easily too. And for someone seeming to dislike determinacy, what would that mean? A new way to discriminate people? Bruno Craig Bruno It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. John K Clark -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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
Re: Scientific journals
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. Hitler's birthday was April 20, so was soul singer Luther Vandross and actor George (Mr. Sulu) Takei. Einstein's birthday was March 14, so was Dr. Seuss and Billy Crystal. Leo (War and Peace) Tolstoy and Honey Boo Boo were both born on August 28, and Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both born at exactly the same time, same day same year. First of all, it's not just the same day of the year, the exact location, year, and time factor in also - but even identical twins are not the same person. The themes involved are about polarity, so that twins often oppose each other as far as which extremes they express...and these are just themes, not controlling mechanisms. Astrology and numerology both are not supposed to be predictive sciences, they are reflective arts. As for Lincoln and Darwin, they are not a bad example at all. They were not born at the same time or place, but they still embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. (from http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_infoproducts_id=461zenid=rg6mgiba3utmerg3b69k0ci3u6) While the coincidence of these two men being born on exactly the same day might fill astrologers with glee, further reflection points to many parallels and intersections in their lives. In this unique approach to history and biography, historian David R. Contosta examines the lives and careers of Lincoln (the political rebel) and Darwin (the scientific rebel), and notes many surprising and illuminating points of comparison. - Lost their mothers in childhood and later lost beloved children at young ages. - Had strained relations with their fathers. - Went through years of searching for a direction to their lives. - Struggled with religious doubt. - Were latter-day sons of the Enlightenment who elevated reason over religious revelation. - Suffered from severe bouts of depression. - Were ambitious as well as patient, with sure and steady mental powers rather than quick minds. - Possessed an excellent sense of pacing that allowed them to wait until the time was ripe for their ideas and leadership. Looking at their charts: [image: http://judecowell.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/lincoln-natal-assassination.jpg] http://catalystastrology.com/images/charlesdarwin.jpg With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun, it is unsurprising that they would share a lasting legacy which is both emotionally contentious and powerfully progressive. There are a ton of things there. The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisces is very much about redemption and themes of devotion and duty...self-sacrifice. I don't know if I trust the time on Darwin's chart, but if it's in the neighborhood of right, then it would make sense that he put science first while Lincoln, with his Sun rising, put his leadership role first. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. They would be a lot more impressive if these predictions had been made before the moon landings and assassination not after. It's easy to make predictions after the fact. The idea that astrology is about prediction is one which has been promoted by tabloid horoscope columns, but that is not a good way of using it or of understanding what it is really about. It can be predictive in the sense that meteorology is predictive, but overall, as with the weather, someone would be better advised taking their cues from their direct perception most of the time, and taking the astrological themes as a kind of supplemental source. Astrology is not about cause and effect, it is about archetypal themes. And I stand by what I said before, after these embarrassingly stupid comments I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. Astrology is extremely rational, which is why scientific development tends to begin with some form of astronomy-based divination. Your bigotry is well known on this list, so I welcome your seal of disapproval as a way to encourage narrow-minded
Re: Scientific journals
On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine asserts things like that. The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp conclusion or prejudice. About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only. Bruno It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. John K Clark -- 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. 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine asserts things like that. The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp conclusion or prejudice. So if self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things that I do, what about the self-referentially correct machines can assert similar things to what Bruno asserts? If one machine claims that the other machine's reports are self-referential artifacts, then how can you say that self-referentially correct machines assert anything in particular? Where are you getting the sense of machine consensus when comp would mean that humans, often incapable of consensus, would contribute evidence to support or contradict any position or belief? About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only. Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. If you aren't interested, then go on assuming that it is idiotic, it makes no difference to me. Craig Bruno It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. John K Clark -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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.
Re: Scientific journals
My best example is the Harvard basketball team which is now getting players into the NBA. I ran with the cross country team when I was there as a grad student. They all got in because of their running ability, not their intelligence. That was back in the early 1960s. So athletes have always had affirmative action and full scholarships as well. I was at Union College as an undergrad on full scholarship as a runner. Back then Union was rated 6th in the nation for small colleges. But then they decided to go big time in ice hockey and their rating dropped right out of the top 25 as they are now perceived to be a jock school. That will not happen to Harvard. But to get a top-rated team in any sport you have to drop your standards. MIT is the only school I know of that refuses to do that. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Their admissions standards have already tanked Can you give a example? Does Craig have degree? Brent -- 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: Scientific journals
As an European, this is all a bit foreign (and terrifying) to me. From what I read and hear from American friends I've worked with, there's another disturbing aspect. Even if you don't get in through sports, you have to essentially destroy your childhood by devoting all of your free time to activities that look good (becoming a quasi-professional violin player, running a charity, etc.). I suspect this filters out the intelligent free-spirits. Possibly by design? Also, it subtly maintins the class system. Helping your parents run a farm in the middle of nowhere isn't the sort of extra-curricular activity that the Ivy League seems interested in. I feel very fortunate that I could get a good quality higher education while still geting away with doing all the stupid stuff that young people are supposed to do. In Europe, everyone who applies to University does a number of standardised tests, and the people with the best grades get in. The unlucky ones can try again next year. That's all. No cover letters, no life stories, no extra-curricular activities. I think we're right on that one. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: My best example is the Harvard basketball team which is now getting players into the NBA. I ran with the cross country team when I was there as a grad student. They all got in because of their running ability, not their intelligence. That was back in the early 1960s. So athletes have always had affirmative action and full scholarships as well. I was at Union College as an undergrad on full scholarship as a runner. Back then Union was rated 6th in the nation for small colleges. But then they decided to go big time in ice hockey and their rating dropped right out of the top 25 as they are now perceived to be a jock school. That will not happen to Harvard. But to get a top-rated team in any sport you have to drop your standards. MIT is the only school I know of that refuses to do that. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Their admissions standards have already tanked Can you give a example? Does Craig have degree? Brent -- 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: Scientific journals
On 11 Apr 2013, at 18:31, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, indeed. What is true is that some astrologists can be more valid in their reasoning than some cosmologists, of course. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. Eventually lucidity on dream was rediscovered by non-para-psychologist and then accepted by the mainstream. Following authoritative argument, and giving importance to name and institution, are not a valid procedure. It can help the choice of the paper you will read, but it cannot help to judge the 'scientific value' of the paper. Bruno 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On 11 Apr 2013, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:31:08 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. What about Schrödinger? “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” You just did the same error as John Clark. Bruno -Erwin Schrödinger Craig John K Clark -- 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. 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:33:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Their admissions standards have already tanked Can you give a example? Does Craig have degree? I have a degree, but my academic career was already over by the time I was 10. In kindergarten I skipped a grade, and made the local newspaper for being the only kid in the school to have ever demonstrated Concrete Operation level skills at age 5. A year later I was tested with a 164 IQ on the Stanford-Binet scale and was transferred to a highly gifted school. By fourth grade I realized that public school in the U.S., even in the elite programs, was a waste of time...and I was right. Craig Brent -- 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: Scientific journals
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Friday, April 12, 2013 2:09:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. He is saying that your reasoning is not valid in jumping to conclusions about what constitutes a guarantee of irrationality...not about whether you are genuinely incredulous or not. It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. Are you really so inundated with people wanting you to believe that the world is flat? Even though I find your views preposterously narrow on many things, I don't take that to mean that you cannot be right about some things. What you are defending has a name - it is pre-judice. The idea that you need not actually consider other people's views before deciding that they are wrong. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. The point was not whether or not you happen to deem lucid dreaming to be possible, it is that the scientific status quo was wrong in this instance and the journal of parapsychology was right. You don't seem to be able to generalize the implications of your prejudice. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
The problem with electronic publishing is that for the most part such papers are not peer reviewed. The one exception I know of is the Journal of Cosmology- from personal experience. They rejected my paper because my references were to the online arXiv.com rather than peer reviewed print journals. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Science and Nature cannot publish every manuscript they receive and they shouldn't even if they could because that would defeat the entire point of having journals. There is only room for a few articles so the editors pick the ones out of the pile they receive every month that they judge to be the most important. I don't see what else they could do. That's rubbish. With electronic publishing, there are no resource constraints in terms of the number of articles that can be published. That is a consideration only for print journals. And Nature and Science are print journals. Yes with electronic publishing everything is available including the insane ramblings of every crackpot on the planet, but if you want to get into Science or Nature you're going to have to convince the editors that your article is probably correct and probably important. And there is no reason in theory why in the future a electronic journal couldn't be just as good as Science or Nature and in fact I think that is likely to happen, but not if the journal decides to publish everything it receives just because it can. The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor deciding that the paper is not worth looking into. Exactly, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. Yes it is. That's what editors do that's their job, and if you disagree with their decision you can read the article someplace else because you can be certain it will end up somewhere. It artificially creates a scarcity that is not there in practice. What scarcity??? No matter how bad the article is you can always put it on the net at virtually no cost to you, and all 7 billion people on this planet can read it if they want to, just don't expect the editors of Science or Nature to say they think it is worth anybody's time to read. Would you publish experimental results from somebody that you know has performed sloppy experiments in the past showing that bees don't make honey and never have? I'd still send it out to peer review. If I was one of those outside peer reviewers I'd be absolutely furious that you'd send me something like that and would ask why you couldn't figure out for yourself that is was crap; I mean, if you're the editor of the Journal of Bees you really should know something about bees. And if yours is a first rate journal I just don't understand where you're going to find all those outside first rate peer reviewers to examine the huge pile of manuscripts that you get every month, 95% of which are not just bad but comically bad. And how long are you going to be able to keep those first rate reviewers when you keep sending them insultingly bad articles? After all, being first rate scientists themselves the reviewers have research of their own to do and can't spend all their time reading the spam that you send them. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Their admissions standards have already tanked Can you give a example? John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. What about Schrödinger? Schrödinger didn't say There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology nor did he say I couldn't have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been analyzing charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most interesting and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life and he also didn't say Most scientific papers I have looked at contain a huge amount of mumbo jumbo. John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:27:44 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. What about Schrödinger? Schrödinger didn't say There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology nor did he say I couldn't have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been analyzing charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most interesting and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life and he also didn't say Most scientific papers I have looked at contain a huge amount of mumbo jumbo. I don't expect others to take astrology or numerology seriously. I didn't until I actually investigated them myself. What I found was interesting, partly because they point to an understanding of principles which are neither completely real nor completely unreal. It appears that these are the kinds of principles which are beneath and behind rationality itself. As far as my comments on modern cosmology and scientific jargon, I would expect that more enlightened minds would be able to see our current belief system in the context of a history of belief systems which were each in their time considered the final truth but which eventually proved profoundly incomplete. It may not be obvious to you that the current system is taking on water, but it is to me. For every nugget of useful truth discovered in the current system, how much time is wasted weaving a web of perceived legitimacy? Craig John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:13:31PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Lack of importance should not be a reason. That is ridiculous. Science and Nature cannot publish every manuscript they receive and they shouldn't even if they could because that would defeat the entire point of having journals. There is only room for a few articles so the editors pick the ones out of the pile they receive every month that they judge to be the most important. I don't see what else they could do. That's rubbish. With electronic publishing, there are no resource constraints in terms of the number of articles that can be published. That is a consideration only for print journals. I can understand prioritising papers going out to peer review, based on some perceived importance, so that obvious scoops are not missed by being clogged up in the peer review pipeline. I believe they already have a fast track process to handle precisely this scenario. What is unimportant to one person, may be important to another. If you disagree with what the editors of Science or Nature judge to be important then read different journals, although I must say that historically their judgement has proven to be remarkably good; not perfect but damn good. Pretty much what I already do - though not due to any cosncious decision. The Nature articles I've actually read have been from the '70s or earlier. I have ocasionally cited more recent Nature (and even Science) articles, but mostly because I want to refer to a body of literature, and that has been how other people have cited it. Of course I do read journal articles (although I get most of my information from arXiv preprints), but they tend to be the specialty journals, not the general ones like Nature and Science. Just saying. The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor deciding that the paper is not worth looking into. Exactly, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. Yes it is. It artificially creates a scarcity that is not there in practice. If I was the editor of the (fictitious) Journal of Bees, then I would be quite right in rejecting a paper about North Atlantic Salmon as being out of scope. Would you publish experimental results from somebody that you know has performed sloppy experiments in the past showing that bees don't make honey and never have? I'd still send it out to peer review. If its as obvious as that, it won't take very long for the peers to reject the article. Presumably, as editor, I'd feel able to be one of the peer reviewers in this case, saving the other peers :). Would you publish results from a meticulously conducted experiment that scrupulously followed the scientific method proving that if bees are dunked into a bucket of blue lead based paint they take on a blueish hue and die? OK I missed that. Obviousness of the result is probably a valid reason for rejecting an article (as it is in patents). Its different to importance though. -- 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On 4/11/2013 10:15 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Their admissions standards have already tanked Can you give a example? Does Craig have degree? Brent -- 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: Scientific journals
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very junk science problem you mention. I don't know what that means. What I am saying is in this wired world, where journal space is not a scarce resource, papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific reasons In this wired world anything and anybody can get published, some online journals will publish anything if you pay them, or hell you could post it right here for free; but getting published is one thing getting read is something else. Space may not be a scarce resource but time certainly is, nobody can read everything so good scientist look to high ranked journals like Nature and Science to find the best stuff. It's true that you're relying on the judgement of the editors but history have proven their judgement is pretty damn good. And if you disagree with the editors decision just publish it someplace else, just don't expect Science or Nature to endorse it. papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific I agree, I can think of only 2 reasons for rejecting a paper, it's not important or it's not true. Other papers, where there are doubts or confusion, should be subject to the author adequately addressing the referees' criticisms. And that's how Nature dodged a bullet during the cold fusion fiasco. It's largely forgotten today but back in1989 soon after their notorious cold fusion press conference Pons and Fleischmann did submit a paper to Nature, and given that at the time Pons and Fleischmann were respected scientists and knowing the potential importance of it the editors put it on a fast track for publication; and In just a few days they received comments from the referees. They wanted more data confirming the cold fusion reaction, but even more important, they wanted clarification of the experimental setup. As described in the paper the experiment was so vague and nebulous it would be impossible for anyone to reproduce it. Pons and Fleischmann responded that they were busy and just did not have time to supply the requested data. They then withdrew the paper and got it published in a third rate journal few had heard of. The results were predictable, others tried to reproduce the experiment but got no interesting results, Pons and Fleischmann said oh we forgot to mention for it to work you must do this and that. And so others would try again with this new refinement and again they got nothing of interest and again Pons and Fleischmann said oh we forgot to mention for it to work you must also do that and this. After a few dozen iterations of this reputable scientists, mindful that they were mortal and only had a finite number of years to do science, grew tired of this silly game and moved on to other more productive things. And now Pons and Fleischmann are no longer respected scientists, but Nature is still a respected journal. Furthermore, with Google, or Google Scholar, and arXiv, you don't need the status of Nature or Science to make your article visible or cited. If you're satisfied with arXiv and don't want a endorsement from Nature or Science then what are you complaining about? John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era. Yes, what's killing the Enlightenment is the lack of papers about astrology and numerology, so Nature and Science need to start publishing some. The same thing can be seen with universities, as the prestige brand institutions are elevated beyond the reach of anyone but the most overprepared students Yes, Harvard Yale and Princeton need to start picking stupider students, that will get the Enlightenment going again! John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
Their admissions standards have already tanked On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era. Yes, what's killing the Enlightenment is the lack of papers about astrology and numerology, so Nature and Science need to start publishing some. The same thing can be seen with universities, as the prestige brand institutions are elevated beyond the reach of anyone but the most overprepared students Yes, Harvard Yale and Princeton need to start picking stupider students, that will get the Enlightenment going again! John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era. Yes, what's killing the Enlightenment is the lack of papers about astrology and numerology, so Nature and Science need to start publishing some. There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. Our current understanding of nature is a way to make a lot of incompatible equations make sense by dismantling the reality of what those equations were supposed to describe. The same thing can be seen with universities, as the prestige brand institutions are elevated beyond the reach of anyone but the most overprepared students Yes, Harvard Yale and Princeton need to start picking stupider students, that will get the Enlightenment going again! Being overprepared is not about being intelligent, it is about being well financed and well chaperoned. Just ask Yale alum, George W. Bush. Craig John K Clark -- 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: Scientific journals
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:18:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very junk science problem you mention. I don't know what that means. What I am saying is in this wired world, where journal space is not a scarce resource, papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific reasons In this wired world anything and anybody can get published, some online journals will publish anything if you pay them, or hell you could post it right here for free; but getting published is one thing getting read is something else. Space may not be a scarce resource but time certainly is, nobody can read everything so good scientist look to high ranked journals like Nature and Science to find the best stuff. It's true that you're relying on the judgement of the editors but history have proven their judgement is pretty damn good. And if you disagree with the editors decision just publish it someplace else, just don't expect Science or Nature to endorse it. papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific I agree, I can think of only 2 reasons for rejecting a paper, it's not important or it's not true. Lack of importance should not be a reason. What is unimportant to one person, may be important to another. That is what abstracts were invented for. The thing about editorial rejection is that it is based on an editor deciding that the paper is not worth looking into. Another good reason for rejecting the paper is that it has been done before. Although, having said that, it could be worthwhile publishing confirmations of experimental results by independent teams - I was thinking more in terms of theoretical papers. Another good reason is being out of scope. If I was the editor of the (fictitious) Journal of Bees, then I would be quite right in rejecting a paper about North Atlantic Salmon as being out of scope. Of course, Nature and Science do have rather generous boundaries of scope, but even they would be justified for rejecting a paper about creationist theory, for example. Physical Review has a stated policy that they will not consider papers in the area of foundations of quantum mechanics. That's fine - its quite clear, up front policy, about the scope of the journal. Other journals exist to cover those areas. Other papers, where there are doubts or confusion, should be subject to the author adequately addressing the referees' criticisms. And that's how Nature dodged a bullet during the cold fusion fiasco. It's largely forgotten today but back in1989 soon after their notorious cold fusion press conference Pons and Fleischmann did submit a paper to Nature, and given that at the time Pons and Fleischmann were respected scientists and knowing the potential importance of it the editors put it on a fast track for publication; and In just a few days they received comments from the referees. They wanted more data confirming the cold fusion reaction, but even more important, they wanted clarification of the experimental setup. As described in the paper the experiment was so vague and nebulous it would be impossible for anyone to reproduce it. Pons and Fleischmann responded that they were busy and just did not have time to supply the requested data. They then withdrew the paper and got it published in a third rate journal few had heard of. This is an example of peer review working correctly. It is not an example of the editorial rejection policy I was referring to. Furthermore, with Google, or Google Scholar, and arXiv, you don't need the status of Nature or Science to make your article visible or cited. If you're satisfied with arXiv and don't want a endorsement from Nature or Science then what are you complaining about? John K Clark Firstly, I'm not complaining about Nature and Science. I don't care about them, and the status they supposedly confer. I'm complaining about the editorial rejection policy (as opposed rejecting on the basis of peer review), that seems to have crept into use in other journals too. Why am I not satisfied with arXiv? Mainly, because when peer review works, it works well. The end result are papers that are improved over the original draft published to arXiv, or are withdrawn from publication because some fatal flaw has been discovered (or it was thought of before, etc). I have always diligently acted as a peer reviewer myself, when asked to, unless it was a paper completely out of my area of expertise. A lot of academics don't do this, or do only a lacklustre effort, because there is no credit for doing so, which is a major part of the problem. However, I have had recent experiences of sending papers to journal after journal, and having them rejected without any form of peer review, nor even explanation
Re: Scientific journals
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:24:12 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:38:24AM -0400, John Clark wrote: But why do you agree with the odds? If a very low ranking journal got astonishingly lucky and published a paper of HUGE transcendental importance before much higher ranked journals then it's just a matter of time before the much higher ranked journals catch on and start publishing articles on that subject of their own. But I'll tell you what, because I like you for a limited time only I'm willing to increase the odds to 100 to 1; if you accept this bet before noon tomorrow on the east coast of the USA and if Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $10,000, if none of them do you only have to give me $100. But wait there's more! As a special bonus if you win not only will I give you $10,000 but I will also kiss your ass and give you 10 minutes to gather a crowd. Operators are standing by, don't delay. The top two journals have a policy of not even sending out half of their submissions to peer review. This editorial rejection rate really means that the next big thing will almost certainly not be published in Science or Nature. Of course this leads to high impact factors for those journals, as they're only publishing papers in established bandwagon fields, with lots of people citing each other's papers. What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are now doing the same This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era. The same thing can be seen with universities, as the prestige brand institutions are elevated beyond the reach of anyone but the most overprepared students from the wealthiest families, the value of a non-elite bachelor's degree level is falling beneath the level of the debt it incurs. The stage is now set for a kind of academic feudalism which is driven by careerism and accreditation rather than learning and understanding. The fallout of this is that no university can afford to support research outside of the bandwagon and science becomes little more than a clergy for corporate legal departments. Oh well, Western Civilization was a nice idea while it lasted. 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: Scientific journals
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:55:22PM -0400, John Clark wrote: You want to bet? I mean it, I'll bet you that there is a 50% chance that at least one of the next Nobel Prizes will be for work first publised in Science or Nature and a 0% chance it was for stuff published in PLoS ONE. I will not be taking the bet, for the following reasons: Firstly, we agree on the latter clause - there is an infinitesimal chance that any particular named open-access journal (eg PLoS) will scoop the Nobel prize - approaching zero in limit of an infinity of journals, so the bet should only be about the first clause. Secondly, it will take an enormous amount of effort to establish that the research was in fact published first in Nature or Science, rather than merely been cited there. It would involve reviewing all of the thousands of journals out there (as historically, it is often the second or third guy that thinks of an idea that gets the credit) to see if anyone has published the idea in any form whatsoever. Its not impossible - something like a Google Scholar scale of big data computation will make it feasible, but it will require writing custom tools, getting both of us to agree on the methodology, and well to be frank - I have other things to do with my time. Those journals have not changed their policy in decades yet it's in them we first learned why the stars shine, that DNA contains the information in life and told us its shape and how it reproduced, told us about the existence of the neutron which led to nuclear bombs and power, told us about the first animal to be cloned, told us that continents moved, that a huge asteroid crashed into Mexico 66 million years ago, that most of the matter in existence is made of some strange invisible stuff, that neutrinos have mass and oscillate, that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating, that a quantum computer could factor numbers mush faster than a regular computer. All those big things were first published in Science or Nature, why is that going to change now that the world is awash in junk science articles? I don't know that your first claim is correct Those journals have not changed their policy in decades, but I do know that if the world is awash in junk science articles now, and wasn't in the past, then it is highly likely you'll need to change your policy to cope. Just like we (almost) all use spam filters these days, but didn't 10 years ago. The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very junk science problem you mention. What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are now doing the same Because crappy articles vastly outnumber even mediocre articles, and there are not enough mediocre outside judges to read all the stuff that is sent to mediocre journals. Yes - and believe it or not, I've seen plenty of articles in Nature that I would have rejected as obvious crap if I was refereeing the papers. I don't recall having read much in Science, fo some reason, and I don't recall having read a Nature article for about 10 years so - most of the stuff I'm interested in appear in specialty journals, although usually I read them from arXiv. Peer review is hardly perfect, but doing without it would probably be worse. What I am saying is in this wired world, where journal space is not a scarce resource, papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific reasons (which deals with most of the pseudo science rubbish, actually), or for being off-topic (Science should quite rightly reject humanities papers, for instance). Other papers, where there are doubts or confusion, should be subject to the author adequately addressing the referees' criticisms. Furthermore, with Google, or Google Scholar, and arXiv, you don't need the status of Nature or Science to make your article visible or cited. Good science will get cited, no matter where it is published (even arXiv articles get cited, where relevant). It does help for visibility to network, network, network, of course - present at conferences, seek out scientific leaders and establish relationships, and so on - all of which can be hard work, but I seriously doubt a Nature or Science article will help. Where it clearly does help is in applying for tenure. Universities love the prestige that Nature or Science brings. But I don't think that helps science as a whole to advance -- 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
