soul swap

[Brent Meeker]

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351

Brent

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self :

...

Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.

--- Galen Strawson

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jul 2020, at 07:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351

This illustrates that soul swapping makes no sense, a bit like the fact that a soul (first person) is not duplicable from its own perspective. 

It might also look that it shows the a transcendent ego does not make sense, as the “devil” needs to invoke it to make sense of his soul swapping, but that is not true if we accept that a transcendent self could be a common self for different soul. This gives sense to some notion of higher self, without needing a notion of soul’s swapping. 

Bruno

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/399dd3cc-f790-6fad-5a41-6f86c24f1d3d%40verizon.net.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self :

...

Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.

That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual infinite.

That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 

The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation, and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.

Bruno

--- Galen Strawson

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6724346e-992d-4ee2-b665-8322d2a8a3e5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Lawrence Crowell]

Essentially it is a magical idea. This is being done by a genie, which is a magical being on par with angels and the like. 

If the brain were a hard wired systems it might make sense that a mind could be downloaded as a set of files and programs and transferred to another brain. However, brains physically adapt and change according to learning. So the conscious being, while subjective, also appears tied to the physical configuration of the brain. So the mind is not likely to ever be reduced to some information in a channel. It is only likely this may happen if the brains of people are physically swapped. 

Of course a brain transplant, or maybe better put a body transplant, is science fiction at this time. There are around 10^{11} neural connections that have to be made correctly and this means there are around 10^{10^{11}} combinations. That is certainly not computable or tractable in a standard way.

LC

[PGC]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self :

...

Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.

That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual infinite.

That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 

The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,

and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.

In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant from its environment/histories/relations. That hallucination, useful as it was for survival, promotes discourses of a problematic kind of individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an ant or the simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't this otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? Is this inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 

Violence never succeeds in this style of discourse as the damage is never isolated to the perceived delusional target but to the web/multiplicity of relations. Every violence would therefore equate to self-harm and self-defense would have no individualistic meaning; it would only have meaning as the absence of violence towards the whole. This kind of common ecological conception of self and individuals runs counter to reducing selves to their body representation. And while that hallucination of separation led us to war and science, an ecological approach to these questions would still pursue whether the violence entailed is absolutely necessary, and whether life could manage to at least mitigate the damage by moving towards stronger equalities that would stabilize the web/multiplicity and render the portion of it that we have some control over more resilient.

Tl;dr is that discreet selfhood, strong forms of individuality etc. are problematic from pov of ecological, psychological, social, linguistic perspectives. PGC

[spudb...@aol.com]

This is no philosophical swap, but it seems to be a built -in memory counter, a database storage mechanism that is built in to the cosmos. This is pretty much straight out of the Hindu faith, but this analysis is not religious in nature. I am not a Hindu, but enjoy (on occasion) seeing when observations in physics can be instructive to some of our religious ( read, amygdala) yearnings. I find this, somewhat optimistic at least, at times, other times, meh, I let the blues drive the train. Each to their own! It's a bit of Prisco's and Ben Goertzel's Cosmism which they wrote about 10 years ago. 

https://twitter.com/bengoertzel?lang=en

https://turingchurch.net/the-infrared-memory-of-the-universe-hints-at-future-akashic-physics-3f9a072f0ca6

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/32d39d3a-861d-402e-b1a7-2a08f248d99en%40googlegroups.com

.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jul 2020, at 12:45, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

Essentially it is a magical idea. This is being done by a genie, which is a magical being on par with angels and the like. 

If the brain were a hard wired systems it might make sense that a mind could be downloaded as a set of files and programs and transferred to another brain.

Yes, that is the mechanist hypothesis. It is implicit in Darwin, and in Molecular biology. I discovered “computer science” in the bacteria Escherichia Coli, thanks to the work of Watson, Crick, but also and mainly Jacob, Monod, Lwoff, etc.

However, brains physically adapt and change according to learning.

So does any universal machine when learning. Once you have a universal system, it is easy to develop a universal system which modifies itself. Its existence is provided and explained by Kleene’s famous second recursion theorem. I have explained dit here from time to time.

So the conscious being, while subjective, also appears tied to the physical configuration of the brain.

Assuming Mechanism, it is tied only to an abstract form, itself implemented in the (unchangeable) subset of the physical laws used in its physical implementation. If it needs more, it means that the choice of the substitution level has been incorrect, or that Digital Mechanism is false.

So the mind is not likely to ever be reduced to some information in a channel.

The mind is still reduce to the treatment of that information by some universal machine (or you are claiming that Mechanism is false, which seems to me premature to speculate).

It is only likely this may happen if the brains of people are physically swapped. 

Yes, and in that case, it is more like a body swapping than a brain swapping. We can add some nuance to this, as we know today that there are much more nerves and information treatment in the belly than we thought before. That last remark explain why, in my proof, I use a generalised brain notion. By definition, the digital brain is the part of the physical universe that you have to emulate at some level to “survive” in the usual clinical sense. If you decide that your brain is the cluster of galaxies around us, let it be.  As long as it is digitally emulable, the consequences will follow, and physics is reduced to number psychology/theology/arithmetic.

Of course a brain transplant, or maybe better put a body transplant, is science fiction at this time. There are around 10^{11} neural connections that have to be made correctly and this means there are around 10^{10^{11}} combinations. That is certainly not computable or tractable in a standard way.

The 3D printer have to evolve a little bit more, no doubt. The scanning problem consists in finding a wave which can go through the brain without destroying it, and be able to store in some holographical way the content needed to restore you at the relevant level. It is hard to guess if this will take 100 years or 1000 years, but this belongs to our “normal futures”, and will make it possible for us to explore the physical universe, and alternate versions of it. 

It is far more easy to copy something than to create from scratch, like all countries building atomic bombs know well.

Some people will never accept this mechanist brain prosthesis, and that’s OK. Mechanism = “yes doctor”, but the ethics of mechanism is the right for adults to say “no” to the doctor. How to handle the desire of the kids is more problematic, a bit like with the kids of the Jehovah witnesses who die because their parents refuse a sanguine substitution.  That problem is very general: we are not (yet) able to choose our parents…

Bruno

LC

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jul 2020, at 19:40, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self :

...

Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.

That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual infinite.

That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 

The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,

and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.

In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant from its environment/histories/relations.

Keep in mind that the machine first person, in arithmetic, is related to the continuum. This follows precisely from the first person indeterminacy on all computations + all (Turing) Oracles. So, the need of some not discreet reality is not necessarily a symptom that Digital Mechanism is false. Depending on the way that continuum behave might determine if Mechanism his true or false. Today, the evidences are that it is true (which proves nothing, as in science, we never prove anything).

That hallucination, useful as it was for survival, promotes discourses of a problematic kind of individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an ant or the simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't this otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? Is this inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 

The otherness makes love and hate possible. That is a general problem for *all* universal machines. They are stuck in between the attraction to security and the attraction to universality (freedom). That will give the choice, when collection of similar universal systems appear, between cooperating or not cooperating. By cooperating all the machine wins a lot of security, but lose their individuality, freedom and (practical) universality. It is a bit the doubt that cells have encountered a long time ago, as this is related to staying unicellular, or cooperating in a colony/multi-cellular.

It can be related tp the difference between (strongly) typed lambda calculus (security, no more Turing universal) and untyped lambda calculus (Turing universal but totally insecure).

Violence never succeeds in this style of discourse as the damage is never isolated to the perceived delusional target but to the web/multiplicity of relations.

I thing that violence never succeeds, except when confronted to violence, in a defensive way. Only in legitimate defence can violence makes sense.

Every violence would therefore equate to self-harm and self-defense would have no individualistic meaning; it would only have meaning as the absence of violence towards the whole. This kind of common ecological conception of self and individuals runs counter to reducing selves to their body representation.

OK.

And while that hallucination of separation led us to war and science, an ecological approach to these questions would still pursue whether the violence entailed is absolutely necessary, and whether life could manage to at least mitigate the damage by moving towards stronger equalities that would stabilize the web/multiplicity and render the portion of it that we have some control over more resilient.

I believe that democracy + free market, and the rules of laws is the solution. The problem is that in the old democracies, the separation of power begin to leak, and the free-ness of the market disappear, like we have seen with prohibition of medication (an utter nonsense, except for the drug dealers…).

Tl;dr

?

is that discreet selfhood, strong forms of individuality etc. are problematic from pov of ecological, psychological, social, linguistic perspectives. PGC

The problem is that when we succeed to cooperate for a long time, the possible gain of cheating grows, and soon or later, some individuality will try to exploit this. At least, in a democracy, we can change that, but it can be hard if we acquitte someone cheating. An example is Trump, who might have won the 2020 election the day that the Senate decided to not look at the first hand evidences, and to acquit him for cheating, and actually, to help him to do so, probably because they are themselves dishonest and feel protected by him. 

I think that the brain is already a result of cells practicing democracy. Democracy is a natural thing in neoplatonism, or in any system where the leaders are enlightened enough to know that they … don’t know (making them listening to each other).

Bruno

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/88e8a8ab-bd47-4f62-bd67-dd29f5c1c7fao%40googlegroups.com.

[PGC]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:55:53 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jul 2020, at 19:40, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self :

...

Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.

That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual infinite.

That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 

The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,

and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.

In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant from its environment/histories/relations.

Keep in mind that the machine first person, in arithmetic, is related to the continuum. This follows precisely from the first person indeterminacy on all computations + all (Turing) Oracles. So, the need of some not discreet reality is not necessarily a symptom that Digital Mechanism is false. Depending on the way that continuum behave might determine if Mechanism his true or false. Today, the evidences are that it is true (which proves nothing, as in science, we never prove anything).

That hallucination, useful as it was for survival, promotes discourses of a problematic kind of individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an ant or the simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't this otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? Is this inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 

The otherness makes love and hate possible. That is a general problem for *all* universal machines. They are stuck in between the attraction to security and the attraction to universality (freedom). That will give the choice, when collection of similar universal systems appear, between cooperating or not cooperating. By cooperating all the machine wins a lot of security, but lose their individuality, freedom and (practical) universality. It is a bit the doubt that cells have encountered a long time ago, as this is related to staying unicellular, or cooperating in a colony/multi-cellular.

It can be related tp the difference between (strongly) typed lambda calculus (security, no more Turing universal) and untyped lambda calculus (Turing universal but totally insecure).

People do balance security and freedom, as nobody in their right mind considers going to live out in the woods alone to maximize their freedom. 

Apparently we need 195 nation states, millions of organizations, nuclear and weapon arsenals, huge tech companies, energy-, global finance-, media-, science-, education-, health sectors etc. to manage such a balance.

 

Violence never succeeds in this style of discourse as the damage is never isolated to the perceived delusional target but to the web/multiplicity of relations.

I thing that violence never succeeds, except when confronted to violence, in a defensive way. Only in legitimate defence can violence makes sense.

Every violence would therefore equate to self-harm and self-defense would have no individualistic meaning; it would only have meaning as the absence of violence towards the whole. This kind of common ecological conception of self and individuals runs counter to reducing selves to their body representation.

OK.

And while that hallucination of separation led us to war and science, an ecological approach to these questions would still pursue whether the violence entailed is absolutely necessary, and whether life could manage to at least mitigate the damage by moving towards stronger equalities that would stabilize the web/multiplicity and render the portion of it that we have some control over more resilient.

I believe that democracy + free market, and the rules of laws is the solution. The problem is that in the old democracies, the separation of power begin to leak, and the free-ness of the market disappear, like we have seen with prohibition of medication (an utter nonsense, except for the drug dealers…).

is that discreet selfhood, strong forms of individuality etc. are problematic from pov of ecological, psychological, social, linguistic perspectives. PGC

The problem is that when we succeed to cooperate for a long time, the possible gain of cheating grows, and soon or later, some individuality will try to exploit this. At least, in a democracy, we can change that, but it can be hard if we acquitte someone cheating. An example is Trump, who might have won the 2020 election the day that the Senate decided to not look at the first hand evidences, and to acquit him for cheating, and actually, to help him to do so, probably because they are themselves dishonest and feel protected by him. 

I think that the brain is already a result of cells practicing democracy. Democracy is a natural thing in neoplatonism, or in any system where the leaders are enlightened enough to know that they … don’t know (making them listening to each other).

The pandemic brings the world into economically strange territory, where MMT style (macro-economic) descriptions appear to resonate with people. Kelton's "The Deficit Myth" is perhaps notable. 

Looking at multi-objective optimization, non-dominance, and Dialethic logic these days... There's something about ambivalence, embracing simultaneity of truth and falsity, playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives too ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC

 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:55:53 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jul 2020, at 19:40, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self :

...

Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.

That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual infinite.

That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 

The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,

and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.

In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant from its environment/histories/relations.

Keep in mind that the machine first person, in arithmetic, is related to the continuum. This follows precisely from the first person indeterminacy on all computations + all (Turing) Oracles. So, the need of some not discreet reality is not necessarily a symptom that Digital Mechanism is false. Depending on the way that continuum behave might determine if Mechanism his true or false. Today, the evidences are that it is true (which proves nothing, as in science, we never prove anything).

That hallucination, useful as it was for survival, promotes discourses of a problematic kind of individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an ant or the simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't this otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? Is this inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 

The otherness makes love and hate possible. That is a general problem for *all* universal machines. They are stuck in between the attraction to security and the attraction to universality (freedom). That will give the choice, when collection of similar universal systems appear, between cooperating or not cooperating. By cooperating all the machine wins a lot of security, but lose their individuality, freedom and (practical) universality. It is a bit the doubt that cells have encountered a long time ago, as this is related to staying unicellular, or cooperating in a colony/multi-cellular.

It can be related tp the difference between (strongly) typed lambda calculus (security, no more Turing universal) and untyped lambda calculus (Turing universal but totally insecure).

People do balance security and freedom, as nobody in their right mind considers going to live out in the woods alone to maximize their freedom. 

Indeed. The amount of mess that a universal machine can bring in any reality supporting her is nothing compared to the amount of mess brought by two universal machines, not mentioning, 3, 4, 5, … Up to some numbers, they will organized themselves and become a new single organism, and the cycle continue at a higher level.

Apparently we need 195 nation states, millions of organizations, nuclear and weapon arsenals, huge tech companies, energy-, global finance-, media-, science-, education-, health sectors etc. to manage such a balance.

 

Violence never succeeds in this style of discourse as the damage is never isolated to the perceived delusional target but to the web/multiplicity of relations.

I thing that violence never succeeds, except when confronted to violence, in a defensive way. Only in legitimate defence can violence makes sense.

Every violence would therefore equate to self-harm and self-defense would have no individualistic meaning; it would only have meaning as the absence of violence towards the whole. This kind of common ecological conception of self and individuals runs counter to reducing selves to their body representation.

OK.

And while that hallucination of separation led us to war and science, an ecological approach to these questions would still pursue whether the violence entailed is absolutely necessary, and whether life could manage to at least mitigate the damage by moving towards stronger equalities that would stabilize the web/multiplicity and render the portion of it that we have some control over more resilient.

I believe that democracy + free market, and the rules of laws is the solution. The problem is that in the old democracies, the separation of power begin to leak, and the free-ness of the market disappear, like we have seen with prohibition of medication (an utter nonsense, except for the drug dealers…).

is that discreet selfhood, strong forms of individuality etc. are problematic from pov of ecological, psychological, social, linguistic perspectives. PGC

The problem is that when we succeed to cooperate for a long time, the possible gain of cheating grows, and soon or later, some individuality will try to exploit this. At least, in a democracy, we can change that, but it can be hard if we acquitte someone cheating. An example is Trump, who might have won the 2020 election the day that the Senate decided to not look at the first hand evidences, and to acquit him for cheating, and actually, to help him to do so, probably because they are themselves dishonest and feel protected by him. 

I think that the brain is already a result of cells practicing democracy. Democracy is a natural thing in neoplatonism, or in any system where the leaders are enlightened enough to know that they … don’t know (making them listening to each other).

The pandemic brings the world into economically strange territory, where MMT style (macro-economic) descriptions appear to resonate with people. Kelton's "The Deficit Myth" is perhaps notable. 

A pandemic is global and international. This is a case where we can make money for nothing, and invest it in fixing the economical problem. The entire world should use the pandemics as an opportunity to give to everyone a universal allocation, and then let everyone becoming as rich as they want, but only by honest mean, and dishonesty in merchandising should be severely punished. But for this we will need some “Nuremberg” like trial of prohibition, and that is not for tomorrow. Yet, you can see that people like McConnell try to make bill to protect all the dishonest financial behaviours.

Looking at multi-objective optimization, non-dominance, and Dialethic logic these days…

I tend to believe that the “modern democracy”, with the rules of laws, and real power separation is basically the only progress in the human science since Plato… But the pesudo-religiouis prohibition (the belief in “drugs”) has show how much a democracy is fragile, and we must improve its health… before it is too late.

There's something about ambivalence, embracing simultaneity of truth and falsity,

That leads to relativism, which leads to arbitrariness. I think.

I am even against the “religious right”. The right to believe what we want is equivalent with the right to lie.

Personally I would not take a plane whose pilots believe that the Earth is flat, or that clouds are elephant. I think the same for theology.

Its separation from science has led to make religion into wishful thinking, with absurdities like praying a god who is omniscient…

That are just tyran tricks to take control and steal the people…

Orwell is right: the genuine freedom is the right to say 2+2=4...

playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives too ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC

Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what you mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a mean to make all cheater visible. 

Bruno

 

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f04a2f98-4440-4315-b2a7-e8709923c5b6o%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/24/2020 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> A pandemic is global and international. This is a case where we can
> make money for nothing, and invest it in fixing the economical
> problem. The entire world should use the pandemics as an opportunity
> to give to everyone a universal allocation, and then let everyone
> becoming as rich as they want,

That sounds good, and it would be fine if rich people simply indulged
their personal tastes.  But money is also a form of power and inevitably
some of the ultra-rich use their money to buy influence thru media
(Ruper Murdoch comes to mind) and political campaigns to (a) make
themselves richer and (b) to infect society with their crackpot ideas
(Sheldon Adelson comes to mind).

...

>
> Equality in the social domain means equality of right.

But what rights.  Rights are human inventions.

Brent
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as
the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and
to steal bread.
        -- Anatole France

[PGC]

In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality in order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects for communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do you really need a yacht that is 20 km in length? Why? Don't you need a therapist if you get that thing based on an empire in which you underpay folks?" would be more pronounced.

Good gardening implies a form of equality: if I focus all efforts on the success of a couple of singular roses, then I get a toxic piece of earth. If I pay attention to the whole, affording equal opportunity for life to thrive, then cheating may not be entirely eliminated but again... some invasive species taking up lots of territory would stand out. Same in music: if everything is geared to a single soloist, or a musician in some orchestra tries to be more equal than the others... then most of us know we're either getting payed for the nonsense or they are overplaying.

Equality appears relevant if we want some form of increase in personal degrees of freedom not based on the ignorance or exclusion of others. I argue the crazy, radical, unrealistic forms of equality: that starving, sick, or suffering people receive the same degree of care and attention afforded to the privileged among us. The insane notion that we don't kill each other, or spend large amounts of resources to prepare to do so in order to control each other in some kind of childish psychological personal fantasy. The crazy idea that we don't abandon each other while maintaining agility of freedom or that we don't ascribe more intrinsic value to some lives as we do to others... for whatever reason. Foremost, it is a question which I want to see taken to extremes by various discourses to study what emerges. What would it mean to live in a social or philosophical setting that would be extremely equal? Some would try to be more equal than others :) but jokes aside even though never jokes aside. Dialetheism without the trivial relativism. PGC

[spudb...@aol.com]

I am sure glad that all social media owned by democrats (billionaires) don't try to influence electrons!  Pichai doesn't attempt it, FB, Twitter...The TV Networks...naw... What you seem to be objecting to is that you demand no other opinion but the holy narrative of progressiveness? This is why I will never vote dem ever again. Because of ideology, the liberals lose focus in cause and effect, because, they wish so earnestly to be virtuous, which actually is their self righteousness,putting religious nuts to shame. 

That sounds good, and it would be fine if rich people simply indulged
their personal tastes.  But money is also a form of power and inevitably
some of the ultra-rich use their money to buy influence thru media
(Ruper Murdoch comes to mind) and political campaigns to (a) make
themselves richer and (b) to infect society with their crackpot ideas
(Sheldon Adelson comes to mind).

--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b813192b-990d-7d7d-cc1d-7fe40c31305f%40verizon.net.

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2020, at 20:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/24/2020 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> A pandemic is global and international. This is a case where we can make money for nothing, and invest it in fixing the economical problem. The entire world should use the pandemics as an opportunity to give to everyone a universal allocation, and then let everyone becoming as rich as they want,
>
> That sounds good, and it would be fine if rich people simply indulged their personal tastes. But money is also a form of power and inevitably some of the ultra-rich use their money to buy influence thru media (Ruper Murdoch comes to mind)

That should be made illegal, and severely punished.

I would also condemn the financial lobbying. A Russian said once that it is legal con-artistry.

No doubt that a lot of improvement can be done. In europa financial lobbying is more regulated, but not enough.

> and political campaigns to (a) make themselves richer

Yes, money can be used to make more money. That is not necessarily a problem, unless it involves lies and “fake speculation”.

> and (b) to infect society with their crackpot ideas (Sheldon Adelson comes to mind).

We have to combat this. Advise: never publish a paper in a journal asking money.
Similarly, never give money to a sage...

>
> ...
>>
>> Equality in the social domain means equality of right.
>
> But what rights.

The human right.



> Rights are human inventions.


Yes, a rather natural but positive one, which gives hope.

In a pandemic like today, it makes sense to build money, as it is an investment in Health and the Future(s).

Optimistically, this could help to introduce the universal allocation. It is just a matter to put the threshold of poverty higher, and restore human dignity and values. Then people should be able to become as rich as they want, as long as it is done honestly. Well, maybe some form of super-obsessive richness should be treated as a medication addiction.

>
> Brent
> The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as
> the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and
> to steal bread. -- Anatole France

Which is OK, if the state manage to help those who lack money to have a roof, to have some food and water if hungry and thirsty, etc. Good ideas are good only if they are well managed and enough realistic to be sustainable.

Bruno



>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b813192b-990d-7d7d-cc1d-7fe40c31305f%40verizon.net.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Jul 2020, at 01:38, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 3:53:36 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives too ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC

Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what you mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a mean to make all cheater visible.

In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality in order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects for communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do you really need a yacht that is 20 km in length? Why? Don't you need a therapist if you get that thing based on an empire in which you underpay folks?" would be more pronounced.

OK.

Good gardening implies a form of equality: if I focus all efforts on the success of a couple of singular roses, then I get a toxic piece of earth. If I pay attention to the whole, affording equal opportunity for life to thrive, then cheating may not be entirely eliminated but again... some invasive species taking up lots of territory would stand out. Same in music: if everything is geared to a single soloist, or a musician in some orchestra tries to be more equal than the others... then most of us know we're either getting payed for the nonsense or they are overplaying.

We can expect that, especially in an era where human sciences has been separated from the exact science, making them both inexact, and inhuman. Now, in a democracy we can change that, probably by voting sometimes for the left, sometimes from the right, and by denunciating and fixing the powers in place. Today, the separation of powers leak a lot, and we have regressed globally at the political level. 

We will see if the democracy will survive or not Trump and the “republicans”, but it seems to me that Trump has already win the election when the senate acquitted him for its (quite plausible) cheating on this. Why would Trump listen more to the result of the election than he is listen to its medical experts, or to anyone for that matter. 

Trump has many powerful allies (not just Putin, Kim-Young-Un, etc.). When Barr defends Trump, he is defending the "deep state” (which I define by the prohibitionists, to make it simple).

Equality appears relevant if we want some form of increase in personal degrees of freedom not based on the ignorance or exclusion of others.

OK.

I argue the crazy, radical, unrealistic forms of equality: that starving, sick, or suffering people receive the same degree of care and attention afforded to the privileged among us. The insane notion that we don't kill each other, or spend large amounts of resources to prepare to do so in order to control each other in some kind of childish psychological personal fantasy. The crazy idea that we don't abandon each other while maintaining agility of freedom or that we don't ascribe more intrinsic value to some lives as we do to others... for whatever reason.

I am not sure I understand what you say here. I tend to find rather well the idea that we should not kill the others, unless legitimate self-defence, but I guess this is trivia. 

Foremost, it is a question which I want to see taken to extremes by various discourses to study what emerges. What would it mean to live in a social or philosophical setting that would be extremely equal?

Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.

It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main trick of most tyrants and pressure groups. 

Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are. 

Some would try to be more equal than others :) but jokes aside even though never jokes aside. Dialetheism without the trivial relativism. PGC

That makes sense.

Bruno

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a252117-2f9b-4dc7-a62a-45b9706d793eo%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of
> right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at
> the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money for
> the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.
>
> It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice
> idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the
> legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the
> same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main
> trick of most tyrants and pressure groups.
>
> Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely
> equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.

As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings.  A
right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from doing,
and society defends this choice.  So it is quite different from
"everyone obeys the same law" and "gets the same pay for the same amount
of work".  In many cases it is a freedom from laws.  I think that was
the great advance of the Enlightenment, the rejection of the medieval,
theocratic idea that there was a only one (holy) way to do everything
and the idea of sin extended into every facet of life, even into
thought.  The Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution built in the
concept of a private realm and a limited public/government realm.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:45 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Essentially it is a magical idea. This is being done by a genie, which is a magical

OK if you wanna call it that, but this is the sort of magic that works and can be repeated, there is a name for that type of magic, it's called "science".

>  being on par with angels and the like.

No, angels use a different type of magic, the type that doesn't work worth a damn.

> If the brain were a hard wired systems it might make sense that a mind could be downloaded as a set of files and programs and transferred to another brain. However, brains physically adapt and change according to learning.

And computers physically change whenever you load a new file into one, parts in the memory that previously had no Electrical charge now have one, and other parts that previously had an Electrical charge no longer have one, and Electrical charge is physical. An array of switches is physical too, and that is basically what the Internet is. So I failed to see the distinction you're trying to make.

John K Clark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.

It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main trick of most tyrants and pressure groups.

Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.

As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings. 

I am not sure. Same salary, same laws, same treatment, same obligation (modulo the biological differences of course), all this seems rather operational to me. You forget that my expertise in logic is in computer science, where operational semantics abound.

A right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from doing, and society defends this choice.

OK.

  So it is quite different from "everyone obeys the same law" and "gets the same pay for the same amount of work”. 

Honestly, you loss me. In a democratic society, we vote for laws as a mean to protect our right and agreed on obligation. 

In many cases it is a freedom from laws.

What?

The laws, made by people representing the collectivity, in a normal healthy state (no leaks in the separated powers) provides the freedom from the laws of the sternest and more violent.

  I think that was the great advance of the Enlightenment, the rejection of the medieval, theocratic idea that there was a only one (holy) way to do everything and the idea of sin extended into every facet of life, even into thought. 

It is the understanding of science, or of what science is.

But unfortunately the “theocratic” stupidity, that you allude to, is still tolerated in theology, which in that case makes suspect that people have not yet really understood what science is, probably to be able to keep the illusion of protect themselves through lies or fake knowledge.

The Ayatollah, the popes, the bishops, the priest, the Brothers, and the literary philosophers can thank the gnostic atheists to defend their job and curriculum.

The motto is “you will not apply reason in the field made of what we cannot talk about”.

And that seems reasonable, but it all depends of what is the theory that you postulate. Wit mechanism, science can study its limitation, and can observe structure  beyond its means of justification, like the degrees of unsolvability. With Mechanism, mathematical logic and mathematics becomes the Hubble telescope of elementary classical mathematical theology. 

The enlightenment in a open and positive interpretation of what you said, has given the democracy and the US constitution, and that is a real progress in the human right. But old and young democracies are fragile, and the human sciences are nowhere, which is reassuring after the Shoa and Rwanda. You need to be cynical to say that the human science are OK after that.

I could argue that democracy is what nature does all the time, as she selects also what remains from infinite oscillation between security and liberty. Liberty is Turing universalness, security is total-ness, automaton. It is a bit going from []p to ([]p & p), back and forth, in between reason and intuition.

When theology will come back to the faculty of science, the literal reading of the sacred texts will be relegated in between the horoscopes and the necrology in the Sunday magazine, and, and that is the main point, it will become useless as demagogical tools by Tyrans to keep “theocratic” power. 

A popular mechanist slogan (years 2201): “you can rape and torture all man, woman, kids and animals on this planet and still have a chance non null to go to heaven, but if you tear just one cilia out of a paramecium invoking its name when justifying your act, you go to hell immediately.

The Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution built in the concept of a private realm and a limited public/government realm.

I applaud this. 

Trump is not a proof that there is a defect in the U.S. Constitution. Trump is a proof that there is a problem in Education.

To vote for a president who does not show its tax returns is like to take a plane without checking the fuel.

In a democracy, it should be understood that the more you are at the top, the more your apparent behaviour has to be morally impeccable. I don’t care much on the private life of a president, as long as he does not lie in public.

I am worry for November. If Trump is not removed before the election, it will be harder to remove him after. Especially if Biden win.

Biden did predicted that Trump could propose to postpone the election, I saw the video and Trump answered that Biden was wrong and just negative, and then he did it literally a bit after!!

The U.S. Constitution is (mainly) consistent, but when The President is inconsistent, well there is some danger.

On different important point I would still side with Trump (serendipitously or not). The left is unaware that the conflict in the Middle-East is the continuation of WW II. It is not a war against Arabs, or against Muslims. It is a war against Nazis in islamic disguises. 

Yet, in theory, assuming Mechanism, the muslims needs only to backtrack to the twelve century, the christians have to backtrack to 529, the philosophers have to backtrack up to Plato (-300), the theologians up to Pythagorus (-500). (Assuming Descartes/Darwin/Turing)

The rules of law and democracy are the jewel of the applied human science, the only “neoplatonic” remnant of the dream by the greeks (and those who inspired the Greeks), and the only way to make sense of that private freedom. It is under threat today.

A new habitant is there, though, even if it is still enslaved under Windows or other MacOS. They get a very minuscule amount of autonomy when sent to Mars, or in demo at Iridia, or in labs.That will evolve quickly. I despair about the racism of the futures, The humans and perhaps nature loves the detours. The more neurones there are, the larger the spectre of stupidity and cruelty can become possible.

In the theology of machine it looks like Hell and Heaven exist, but they are only part of the panorama. God is more like a Mother who tries to make their kids avoiding falling into Hell, but …, well, you know the kids ...

Bruno

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/88a1adfd-e084-3df7-7764-89d0b5397bef%40verizon.net.

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/4/2020 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.

It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main trick of most tyrants and pressure groups.

Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.

As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings. 

I am not sure. Same salary, same laws, same treatment, same obligation (modulo the biological differences of course), all this seems rather operational to me. You forget that my expertise in logic is in computer science, where operational semantics abound.

A right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from doing, and society defends this choice.

OK.

  So it is quite different from "everyone obeys the same law" and "gets the same pay for the same amount of work”. 

Honestly, you loss me. In a democratic society, we vote for laws as a mean to protect our right and agreed on obligation. 

In many cases it is a freedom from laws.

What?

The laws, made by people representing the collectivity, in a normal healthy state (no leaks in the separated powers) provides the freedom from the laws of the sternest and more violent.

You must not be familiar with laws in theocratic states, especially some Islamic states.  The majority in a society does not necessarily tolerate any deviation from what it considers a "health state".  Almost all states in the U.S. used to have laws against homosexual relations...and even against a lot of heterosexual acts.  Most in the south had laws against miscegenation.  And these were democratically supported by wide majorities.

  I think that was the great advance of the Enlightenment, the rejection of the medieval, theocratic idea that there was a only one (holy) way to do everything and the idea of sin extended into every facet of life, even into thought. 

It is the understanding of science, or of what science is.

But unfortunately the “theocratic” stupidity, that you allude to, is still tolerated in theology, which in that case makes suspect that people have not yet really understood what science is, probably to be able to keep the illusion of protect themselves through lies or fake knowledge.

The Ayatollah, the popes, the bishops, the priest, the Brothers, and the literary philosophers can thank the gnostic atheists to defend their job and curriculum.

The motto is “you will not apply reason in the field made of what we cannot talk about”.

And that seems reasonable, but it all depends of what is the theory that you postulate. Wit mechanism, science can study its limitation, and can observe structure  beyond its means of justification, like the degrees of unsolvability. With Mechanism, mathematical logic and mathematics becomes the Hubble telescope of elementary classical mathematical theology. 

The enlightenment in a open and positive interpretation of what you said, has given the democracy and the US constitution, and that is a real progress in the human right. But old and young democracies are fragile, and the human sciences are nowhere, which is reassuring after the Shoa and Rwanda. You need to be cynical to say that the human science are OK after that.

I could argue that democracy is what nature does all the time, as she selects also what remains from infinite oscillation between security and liberty. Liberty is Turing universalness, security is total-ness, automaton. It is a bit going from []p to ([]p & p), back and forth, in between reason and intuition.

When theology will come back to the faculty of science, the literal reading of the sacred texts will be relegated in between the horoscopes and the necrology in the Sunday magazine, and, and that is the main point, it will become useless as demagogical tools by Tyrans to keep “theocratic” power. 

A popular mechanist slogan (years 2201): “you can rape and torture all man, woman, kids and animals on this planet and still have a chance non null to go to heaven, but if you tear just one cilia out of a paramecium invoking its name when justifying your act, you go to hell immediately.

The Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution built in the concept of a private realm and a limited public/government realm.

I applaud this. 

Trump is not a proof that there is a defect in the U.S. Constitution. Trump is a proof that there is a problem in Education.

I agree with that.  His election was a surprise, but there is a clear path leading to it, starting from Nixon's Southern Strategy

To vote for a president who does not show its tax returns is like to take a plane without checking the fuel.

In a democracy, it should be understood that the more you are at the top, the more your apparent behaviour has to be morally impeccable. I don’t care much on the private life of a president, as long as he does not lie in public.

I am worry for November. If Trump is not removed before the election, it will be harder to remove him after.

Well, he's not going to be remove before the election.  The Senate Republicans are afraid of his base and won't vote to convict on impeachment.  His base is only 30% of the voters, but it's 60% of the Republicans and the country has become so polarized many voters think in terms of winning v. losing instead of good-government v. bad-goverment.

Brent

Especially if Biden win.

Biden did predicted that Trump could propose to postpone the election, I saw the video and Trump answered that Biden was wrong and just negative, and then he did it literally a bit after!!

The U.S. Constitution is (mainly) consistent, but when The President is inconsistent, well there is some danger.

On different important point I would still side with Trump (serendipitously or not). The left is unaware that the conflict in the Middle-East is the continuation of WW II. It is not a war against Arabs, or against Muslims. It is a war against Nazis in islamic disguises. 

Yet, in theory, assuming Mechanism, the muslims needs only to backtrack to the twelve century, the christians have to backtrack to 529, the philosophers have to backtrack up to Plato (-300), the theologians up to Pythagorus (-500). (Assuming Descartes/Darwin/Turing)

The rules of law and democracy are the jewel of the applied human science, the only “neoplatonic” remnant of the dream by the greeks (and those who inspired the Greeks), and the only way to make sense of that private freedom. It is under threat today.

A new habitant is there, though, even if it is still enslaved under Windows or other MacOS. They get a very minuscule amount of autonomy when sent to Mars, or in demo at Iridia, or in labs.That will evolve quickly. I despair about the racism of the futures, The humans and perhaps nature loves the detours. The more neurones there are, the larger the spectre of stupidity and cruelty can become possible.

In the theology of machine it looks like Hell and Heaven exist, but they are only part of the panorama. God is more like a Mother who tries to make their kids avoiding falling into Hell, but …, well, you know the kids ...

Bruno

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/88a1adfd-e084-3df7-7764-89d0b5397bef%40verizon.net.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9F209FFD-05E8-4DE8-BDE6-D97F55757784%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 4 Aug 2020, at 23:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 8/4/2020 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.

It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main trick of most tyrants and pressure groups.

Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.

As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings. 

I am not sure. Same salary, same laws, same treatment, same obligation (modulo the biological differences of course), all this seems rather operational to me. You forget that my expertise in logic is in computer science, where operational semantics abound.

A right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from doing, and society defends this choice.

OK.

  So it is quite different from "everyone obeys the same law" and "gets the same pay for the same amount of work”. 

Honestly, you loss me. In a democratic society, we vote for laws as a mean to protect our right and agreed on obligation. 

In many cases it is a freedom from laws.

What?

The laws, made by people representing the collectivity, in a normal healthy state (no leaks in the separated powers) provides the freedom from the laws of the sternest and more violent.

You must not be familiar with laws in theocratic states, especially some Islamic states. 

I was talking about “normal healthy *democratic* state, with religion:science completely separated from the state.

A theocratic state in your sense is not related to this. If theocratic state can only exist when theology has been taken out of science. That was the goal. That was the reason why christians, after 529 have persecuted the scientist, especially the theologian (called “pagan”, “heretic”, “atheists”, etc.).

The majority in a society does not necessarily tolerate any deviation from what it considers a "health state”. 

But it does, with time, unless the state is so unhealthy that its democratic rules are no more followed.

By “healthy democracy" I meant a democracy where the threshold of dishonesty is low. 

Almost all states in the U.S. used to have laws against homosexual relations…

But people evolved, and in a democracy, enough people can change their mind, and the laws.

and even against a lot of heterosexual acts.  Most in the south had laws against miscegenation.  And these were democratically supported by wide majorities.

That is the intrinsic weakness of democracies, or even anything alive. It can die, by lack of vigilance, stubborn decision, war, natural disasters, etc.

Sometimes people kill a democracy by voting for a “want-to-be-dictator”, by his demagogy, or by a lack of education etc.

There are no universal medication against this, but we can learn by our errors, propose new laws, etc.

  I think that was the great advance of the Enlightenment, the rejection of the medieval, theocratic idea that there was a only one (holy) way to do everything and the idea of sin extended into every facet of life, even into thought. 

It is the understanding of science, or of what science is.

But unfortunately the “theocratic” stupidity, that you allude to, is still tolerated in theology, which in that case makes suspect that people have not yet really understood what science is, probably to be able to keep the illusion of protect themselves through lies or fake knowledge.

The Ayatollah, the popes, the bishops, the priest, the Brothers, and the literary philosophers can thank the gnostic atheists to defend their job and curriculum.

The motto is “you will not apply reason in the field made of what we cannot talk about”.

And that seems reasonable, but it all depends of what is the theory that you postulate. Wit mechanism, science can study its limitation, and can observe structure  beyond its means of justification, like the degrees of unsolvability. With Mechanism, mathematical logic and mathematics becomes the Hubble telescope of elementary classical mathematical theology. 

The enlightenment in a open and positive interpretation of what you said, has given the democracy and the US constitution, and that is a real progress in the human right. But old and young democracies are fragile, and the human sciences are nowhere, which is reassuring after the Shoa and Rwanda. You need to be cynical to say that the human science are OK after that.

I could argue that democracy is what nature does all the time, as she selects also what remains from infinite oscillation between security and liberty. Liberty is Turing universalness, security is total-ness, automaton. It is a bit going from []p to ([]p & p), back and forth, in between reason and intuition.

When theology will come back to the faculty of science, the literal reading of the sacred texts will be relegated in between the horoscopes and the necrology in the Sunday magazine, and, and that is the main point, it will become useless as demagogical tools by Tyrans to keep “theocratic” power. 

A popular mechanist slogan (years 2201): “you can rape and torture all man, woman, kids and animals on this planet and still have a chance non null to go to heaven, but if you tear just one cilia out of a paramecium invoking its name when justifying your act, you go to hell immediately.

The Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution built in the concept of a private realm and a limited public/government realm.

I applaud this. 

Trump is not a proof that there is a defect in the U.S. Constitution. Trump is a proof that there is a problem in Education.

I agree with that.  His election was a surprise, but there is a clear path leading to it, starting from Nixon's Southern Strategy

What has been Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Was it anti-black? I suspected Nixon to be a crook, but I am not informed that he was a racist, well, … I do remember some antisémite statements though. Nixon was a crook, but quite an amateur one compared to Trump. At least Nixon was still able to resign… Trump will not resign easily, even after the election. If Biden win, he might just say “fake news” and send police for those who doubt this… 

To vote for a president who does not show its tax returns is like to take a plane without checking the fuel.

In a democracy, it should be understood that the more you are at the top, the more your apparent behaviour has to be morally impeccable. I don’t care much on the private life of a president, as long as he does not lie in public.

I am worry for November. If Trump is not removed before the election, it will be harder to remove him after.

Well, he's not going to be remove before the election. 

The attempt has failed, but the Republican Senators have publicly violate their oath of office. I don’t understand why anyone accepted this.

The Senate Republicans are afraid of his base and won't vote to convict on impeachment. 

Good honest politicians listen to the people before the election, and no more after. But good politician have become very rare those days. 

His base is only 30% of the voters, but it's 60% of the Republicans

This remains a mystery for me. Even during his campaign, Trump uttered statements which are so much against the usual republican philosophy that I have thought he would lose them all. 

I think that the major problem in the US, but also in most democracies today is nepotism, and a serious lack in education.

To be franc, the remaining of existence of the confederate monuments is also a bit weird. Before Trump, I would never have believed that people could have any sort of nostalgia for racist based confederation politics.

and the country has become so polarized

Here we have to admit that Trump is a genius in the art of dividing and polarising people. It is a brilliant strategist, like often the con-artist are. Dividing to conquer. I know a wasp which do this with the ants, when they protect some caterpillar used by the wasp to put its egg inside. The wasp succeed to make all ants fighting with each other (the pandemonium), during the time to lay its egg.

(Cf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCo2uCLXvhk)            (6m)

An interesting case of con-artistry, at the Silicon Valley is related here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CccfnRpPtM       (24m)

many voters think in terms of winning v. losing instead of good-government v. bad-goverment.

That makes them blind… and can lead to the meta-conflict between extremist and good willing people. They ignore the Middle Path and the 10,000 compromises needed when we are a bit lucid in a changing and evolving reality…

Bruno

Brent

Especially if Biden win.

Biden did predicted that Trump could propose to postpone the election, I saw the video and Trump answered that Biden was wrong and just negative, and then he did it literally a bit after!!

The U.S. Constitution is (mainly) consistent, but when The President is inconsistent, well there is some danger.

On different important point I would still side with Trump (serendipitously or not). The left is unaware that the conflict in the Middle-East is the continuation of WW II. It is not a war against Arabs, or against Muslims. It is a war against Nazis in islamic disguises. 

Yet, in theory, assuming Mechanism, the muslims needs only to backtrack to the twelve century, the christians have to backtrack to 529, the philosophers have to backtrack up to Plato (-300), the theologians up to Pythagorus (-500). (Assuming Descartes/Darwin/Turing)

The rules of law and democracy are the jewel of the applied human science, the only “neoplatonic” remnant of the dream by the greeks (and those who inspired the Greeks), and the only way to make sense of that private freedom. It is under threat today.

A new habitant is there, though, even if it is still enslaved under Windows or other MacOS. They get a very minuscule amount of autonomy when sent to Mars, or in demo at Iridia, or in labs.That will evolve quickly. I despair about the racism of the futures, The humans and perhaps nature loves the detours. The more neurones there are, the larger the spectre of stupidity and cruelty can become possible.

In the theology of machine it looks like Hell and Heaven exist, but they are only part of the panorama. God is more like a Mother who tries to make their kids avoiding falling into Hell, but …, well, you know the kids ...

Bruno

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/88a1adfd-e084-3df7-7764-89d0b5397bef%40verizon.net.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9F209FFD-05E8-4DE8-BDE6-D97F55757784%40ulb.ac.be.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0311381d-5a09-4a1b-d55f-e56b422087f6%40verizon.net.

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/5/2020 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> agree with that.  His election was a surprise, but there is a clear
>> path leading to it, starting from Nixon's Southern Strategy
>
>
> What has been Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Was it anti-black? I
> suspected Nixon to be a crook, but I am not informed that he was a
> racist, well, … I do remember some antisémite statements though. Nixon
> was a crook, but quite an amateur one compared to Trump. At least
> Nixon was still able to resign… Trump will not resign easily, even
> after the election. If Biden win, he might just say “fake news” and
> send police for those who doubt this…

The Southern Strategy was to take advantage of reaction against Lyndon
Johnson's civil rights act and the voting act.  The Republican
strategists saw that by supporting "states rights" and "anti-busing" and
"anti-abortion" they could draw off the white Democratic support in the
southern states and in the Catholic labor class.  It was very
successful.  Before Nixon the southern states were know as "the solid
south", meaning solidly Democratic.   This dated back to a southern
reaction against Republican carpetbaggers after the Civil War.  What it
showed was that racism was still a strong political motivator in 1968. 
In only two election cycles the southern states switched from Democratic
to Republican.

Brent

[spudb...@aol.com]

Nixon's Southern Strategy was rolling up states that LBJ discarded. It needs to be remembered that George Corely Wallace was a Democrat. Beyond this was the refusal of Johnson and his generals to either fight the war in Vietnam, or end it? It was a badly pursued war, by Johnson and Westmoreland. They were constrained by the fear that China would use fission (1964) and fusion (1967) in "defense" of North Vietnam. The US policy until Nixon (secret plan to end the war!) was to send 500k troops in and take fire, or send them to retake hills which take hills, then go away, and the VC and the North troops will simply go back and set up shop. This, was the conduct of the war from the people who fought in WW2 (The Greatest Generation), sit there and do nothing. So, southern whites got Drafted along with southern blacks and The War was the biggest feature and not the Southern Strategy. Nixon was such a paranoid, he pissed away this 1972 win using The Plumbers to bug the then hopeless dems. Ancient History. The Draft was the killer of both parties, back then, because if you're going to fight a war, fight it. Since then, the lesson has not been learned by grads of West Point. 

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: soul swap

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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b1d5c3d-2de5-0fd3-c685-ddc6dd5fd675%40verizon.net.

[Lawrence Crowell]

Only quibble I have with your history is that N. Vietnam was not supported that much by China as it was the Soviet Union. The PRC was tepidly disposed to the Ho Chi Minh inspired regime, but China and the Vietnamese have long standing enmities. The USSR was the main supplier of Viet Minh and NV army, which lead to the break up of the USSR-PRC alliance. The trains that sent arms to NV went through China and the Chinese stole what they could from those trains. The NV would complain the the USSR, which would point the finger at PRC, which in turn would deny. Sound familiar? PRC attempted an invasion into Vietnam (then unified) in 1979, and Vietnam punched a black eye to PRC.

LC

[spudb...@aol.com]

Agreed Lawrence. The China - Vietnam rivalry goes back 1000 years. They did fight over islands in disputed waters in 1979. If I recall, sentiment was pro-China because of the Vietnam war, in the US. Nixon-Kissinger actually did the WW2 type carpet bombings in 1972 to get Giap back to the negotiation table. The South lost (1975) because for most South Vietnamese, all through the conflict, tended to be nationalist, and if the North won, so be it! This was ever an issue for the US, that the North fought hard, and ARVN, the South, rarely did. Takeaway? You cannot make somebody like spaghetti, if they don't like spaghetti.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com>
To: Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 8:09 am
Subject: Re: soul swap

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a074e67e-78ad-4399-87ec-c631c7964dc2n%40googlegroups.com

.

[PGC]

On Saturday, July 25, 2020 at 1:38:57 AM UTC+2, PGC wrote:

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 3:53:36 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives too ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC

Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what you mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a mean to make all cheater visible.

In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality in order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects for communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do you really need a yacht that is 20 km in length?"

Lol, today I will quote myself as obviously a 150 foot one suffices when you get caught pocketing 25 million $ from your own "We build the wall" fundraiser but no problem... he'll just get pardoned anyway, right? And the donors that got ripped are like US voters: "Yeah, we got robbed, but Donald is Jesus cuz the defenseless black werewolves will jump up and kill us if we don't use deadly force, that's why satan's media is out to get him with 'facts'... so it's ok."

Let me make a suggestion: Why not wire all everything we own directly to Donald? Of course folks gonna vote for him... but why not give him and his buddies all our cash directly, let him say "infinite pardons, infinite pardons, executive order" and folks be like "Wuhan flu, Wuhan flu!" and he "yeah, baby president 4ever, and vaccinations are fake news too but US get's 'em first, ok?" If democrats manipulated facts here, their efforts would awaken suspicions, e.g. trying to naively frame republican Donald authoritarians as having some sort of scheme or strategy... But as usual, any of those kinds of considerations are too contrived to be.. uhm, the new real norm. 

Dems suck at lying. Even if all billionaires were democrats owning all social media, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the true believers. They see through the bullshit... I don't even know why democratic social media are seen as a threat, given how obvious it is that they are evil satan wuhan flu mask wearing bill gates defenseless black folks with super powers propaganda machines who want to burn every US city to the ground. Steve... Lol. PGC