Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
Hi spudboy, Oops I miss this post, sorry. On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Consider that you are dreaming. In the dream you see the sea, and the sky, and some clouds, and you think that those things are out there. But there is a clear sense that they are not out there OK? When you wake up, you realize it was, in some sense, all in your head. With comp, this is generalized in some way. There is only the true arithmetical propositions, like the machine i output j to the machine k after n steps of the machine g, for example. By the FPI, the consciousness flux differentiates on all arithmetical realization supporting your current life scenario, and apparently some of those dreams can be shared by collection of machines. But despite this, what truly is, is just the number theoretical truth. We can't see that because we are dreamed by them, and like in the dream above, we see many things outside us, but that notion of outside us is part of the dream. It is like in Matrix, except that there is a superposition (by the FPI) of infinitely many matrices, and they interfere below our substitution level. I hope this can help, I am currently explaining the math on the FOAR list, in case you are interested. Bruno Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
Much thanks, Dr. Marchal. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:30 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi spudboy, Oops I miss this post, sorry. On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Consider that you are dreaming. In the dream you see the sea, and the sky, and some clouds, and you think that those things are out there. But there is a clear sense that they are not out there OK? When you wake up, you realize it was, in some sense, all in your head. With comp, this is generalized in some way. There is only the true arithmetical propositions, like the machine i output j to the machine k after n steps of the machine g, for example. By the FPI, the consciousness flux differentiates on all arithmetical realization supporting your current life scenario, and apparently some of those dreams can be shared by collection of machines. But despite this, what truly is, is just the number theoretical truth. We can't see that because we are dreamed by them, and like in the dream above, we see many things outside us, but that notion of outside us is part of the dream. It is like in Matrix, except that there is a superposition (by the FPI) of infinitely many matrices, and they interfere below our substitution level. I hope this can help, I am currently explaining the math on the FOAR list, in case you are interested. Bruno Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI onsciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then here's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness roblem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the ubject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve he mind/body problem. It's only the hard
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- 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
Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
