Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 01/29/2015 07:56 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
I have the distinct awkward feeling that, while I write, there is no
compelling evidence of my existence, only my utterings.
Perhaps
Vladimyr wrote:
I have a Circulant Graph that appears very Hamiltonian in 3D and not so in 2D,
but still interesting?
Mathematica recently (ver 10) added a graph analysis capability. It has a
Hamiltonian predicate (HamiltonianGraphQ).
Marcus
On 01/29/2015 07:56 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
I have the distinct awkward feeling that, while I write, there is no compelling
evidence of my existence, only my utterings.
Perhaps my hollow ringing echoes are sufficient to serve as my fake evidence,
should I choose to perjure myself in a
Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: January-28-15 4:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Heh, this time it seems even gmane failed:
http://news.gmane.org
Glen wrote:
mgd circa Wed Jan 28 00:06:38 EST 2015:
Consider counting boolean values.
Trial one gives `1', `0', `0'.
Trail two gives `1', `0', `0', and, `GodIsGreat'.
The practical question is whether or not its good or adequate practice
to throw away the outlier. Obviously, I tend to
Heh, this time it seems even gmane failed:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.region.new-mexico.santa-fe.friam
Marcus G. Daniels Wed Jan 28 16:38:36 EST 2015:
I suppose I could start giving them tags like [so-and-so
topic].shard[0,1,etc] in the subject line to cope with the deficiency.
I bet
To Marcus and Group,
If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are all true in some respect?
If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we
decide which is true?
Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 15:25 -0600, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the judges,
or do they?
Yes, it is just a struggle for power. There are no rules.
Marcus
FRIAM
I agree with Marcus that the litigants do have the right to enforce
their contrived rules on the judges (as usual, the scare quotes
foreshadow my rhetoric). I think this is mostly because there is no
line between judge and litigant. We can see this quite obviously with
the rampant
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
To Marcus and Group,
If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are all true in some respect
-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Burachynsky
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
To Marcus and Group,
If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one
...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:36 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Well said, Vladimyr.
Frank
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
wimber
, 2014 12:27 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Nick writes:
So when someone proposes a measure of something complicated such as
atheism, it's fair to ask what the validator of that measure would be,
what
On 23 December 2014 at 10:05, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net
wrote:
I have to say that people like Dawkins, FEEL religious to me. If, at some
level, they did
not believe in God, how could it make such a difference to them. They doth
protest too much.
They do protest too much,
Nick wrote:
Well, 30 or more tiny fm radios placed at strategic locations around the
mother board, might be more like it. No?
Like if a team of two or three aliens came to watch the Earth from orbit,
before there was broadcasting. Relatively speaking, that's how many
individual things they'd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29
I don't disagree that low N studies are useful. But high N studies are also
useful.
On 12/22/2014 06:06 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Nick wrote:
Well, 30 or more tiny fm radios placed at strategic locations around the
mother board,
@Glen before diving to deep into it with numbers- do you have a
working defination of Agnostic vs Atheist?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29
I don't disagree that low N studies are useful. But high N studies are
: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:06 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Nick wrote:
Well, 30 or more tiny fm radios placed at strategic
Nick writes:
So when someone proposes a measure of something complicated such as
atheism, it's fair to ask what the validator of that measure would be,
what the measure is actually intended to GET AT. And one of the kind of
standard observations that my kind of psychologist often makes, is that
Marcus' proposal is for _finding_ the correlates to come up with a functional
neuronal biomarker, which might include binding patters across the entire
cortex (eg eeg), which I'd prefer.
I thinking of complex or hypercomplex cells of the visual cortex -- that a
hierarchical combination of
: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:10 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Marcus' proposal is for _finding_ the correlates to come up
We have at hand Bee's essay on phenomenology in physics. The essay
might be summarized by considering coherency as a sufficient argument
for a scientific theory. Going further and suggesting that
non-scientific theories are not worthy of personal or public support is
a separate proposal,
22 matches
Mail list logo
