OT: Desk Attack

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:26:56 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:42:53 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:


Mark Zenier wrote:

In article <pan.2004.11.13.23.42.36.703767@neodruid.org>,
Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net> wrote:


On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:39:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:



Ignore Cuatro and get all your papers dumped in the floor ;-)

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/DeskAttack.jpg


Oh, ick. Cats.


Is this a case of "Like Charges Repelling"?

Cats are natural Libertarians.

I think you've got it in one.

I wonder who he "deigns worthy" to service his toxic
effluvia. Oh, right; everybody.



Do you mean, deal with my own shit?

I do, you cat-serf.

You operate your own waste-disposal plant? Wow! Where do
you sell the sterilized effluent?

The people that do the work are paid by my water/sewer bill.

They can walk away from the job if they want to. ;-)

And if you say, "Ooohh, widdle pwecious pays me in WUV!"
I will definitely be incapacited by paroxysms of projectile
vomiting.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:26:14 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

[snip]

So I'm not singling out cats - they're just such an extreme
example of the bad end of the bad killing/good killing
continuum.

[snip]

What a pile of BS! You've obviously never had a cat for a pet.

May all the cats in the world use your grave as their potty ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:03:00 +0000, Reg Edwards wrote:

When you feel your own Will, you will know.

=================================

Very interesting but sorry to be so disappointing. Free will is
maginary - there's only Shroedinger's cat.

Of course that's all that's true for you. That's because
that's all that you're allowing to exist in your universe.

When you feel your own Will, you will _know_.

Ironically, it's the Will that's real, and the part of you that
thinks it's the only part that's real, is actually the imaginary
part!

You simply haven't learned to see outside your own box yet.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[classd101]

bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote in message news:<a7076635.0411171435.62a32d30@posting.google.com>...

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<8k2fp0h3ukql072fcm8p47lsruoq95q42i@4ax.com>...

To the left of my keyboard is a climber with bed-on-top roost. He
presides there most of the time. But if he needs his ears scratched
he often will simply step out and drape himself straight across the
keyboard. He's too big to sit in my lap... he's Burmese and twice the
size of a typical domestic cat.

...Jim Thompson

Cats make us choose between them and the keyboard, in the nicest
posible way. Those who choose wisely enjoy life. Those who choose
unwisely have chosen their discontent themselves.

NT

Don't know about you guys but I could sure go for some chinese food right about now.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:04:24 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:57:08 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:21:49 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Yup. Get your priorities in order; resolve your own
pain(s) and cause as few new ones for others as possible.
Leave others to do the same at their own pace.
You are getting close, but there are beings who are experiencing
the feeling of being at the bottom of a well with no way out.
He cries for help, and all the blessed ones walk by and yell
down at him, "Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, like
we did."

gently, not stridently

So are you and I. The well has no bottom or top.
"Blessedness" is relative...

Not to the guy at the bottom of the well. "Blessedness" means not
drowning.

Once again, there is no bottom. You just think there is
because of the limited perspective from your POV. Why else
would you try to linearize such a concept?

No, no, no, no, no. It's not linear at all. The reason I say that
there is a bottom is because you can't get any denser than a proton
without dropping out of space entirely. For Will, this means eternal
death. Spirit couldn't give a shit less, because spirit is the fucking
aether. It's the infinite, infinitely rigid, electrical matrix that
thinks it's the boss, and thinks it knows best what Will is supposed
to do, but it has been wrong about this since before the beginning of
time. You can tune into this Infinite Consciousness any time you want
to, by just letting yourself become aware of it. And you can tune into
Infinite Sentience any time you want, except your software keeps insisting
that your hardware is wrong.

Well, which has had more time to evolve through experimentation?

That just does not work, has never worked, and never will. And
every time it happens, it exacerbates the problem. She gets
buried that much deeper. On top of all the shit that she got
buried under that you left behind so that the part of you that
thinks it's the only part, could lift out and not feel the pain
that it itself has caused.

You still cannot feel another's pain. That's a horribly
wasteful illusion.

DOOOOOOOD!!!!

I am here to tell you, I Feel Them ALL! That's the point of this
whole exercise! What you feel is the _only_ reality there is!

It's still only _your_ reality. It isn't necessarily
anyone else's.

Have you asked your own anus about this? I'll bet _it_ knows it exists.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:48:59 GMT, Pig Bladder
<pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

I've heard that even snakes won't eat cat.

---
Who gives a shit?

--
John Fields

 

[Jeff Thompson]

Pig Bladder wrote:

I've heard that even snakes won't eat cat.

There aren't many snakes big enough to eat
a cat. And that's a good thing.

 

[Steve Evans]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:48:59 GMT, Pig Bladder
<pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

I've heard that even snakes won't eat cat.

Hey, Junior, does your mommy know you're poluting the internet with
your crap? Do yoruself a favor and fuck the hell off, huh?

steve
--

Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Do you or do
you not believe in free will? What you've been proposing is
tantamount to "relieving" every being of it, not just its
consequences. Free will is totally valueless unless we learn
the lesson of _consequences_. That's what timebound
existence is all about.
----------------------------

One: You have NO fucking idea what "timebound" existence is all
about, and neither does anyone else. Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

Also, no one can relieve a being of their fate, or the consequences
of that fate. If you effect their fate that is YOUR fate to do so,
it is caused as theirs is caused, by physical laws.

There is only one future for us, just as there is only one tomorrow
that follows today, just as there have been only one tomorrow for
each previous yesterday.

You cannot merely "decide" to do other than you had previously
thought that you would, that was CAUSED by internal processes in
you beyond your awareness and manipulation; you have no fucking
control of that at all.

There is NO such thing as "your will". The thoughts you think own
and produce you, you not you "control" them. The thoughts you have
include your entire notion of you, thus they PRODUCE the entire aware
construct you being aware of who and what you are.

They arise due to your past and the processes your mind does with
that past according to physical laws that it follows, the chemistry
of the brain is every bit as Determined as any other physical
phenomenon which cannot disobey physical law.

To prove this to yourself, that you do not control your thoughts
but that they "think" you into being, simply note that you are unable
to voluntarily change what you believe right now, even the tiniest
belief, except that it may change in a manner totally beyond your
ability to stop it doing so. Not only do you not WANT to change it,
and would have to lie to say you did, but if it changed due to other
causation you would also not be able to stop it! Note that you cannot
even change whether you WANT to change it or not, OR stop THAT if it
is determined to change! And so on, it's elephants all the way down,
and none of them are yours!

And don't EVEN try to give me some bullshit about QM "rescuing" "free
will" from Determinism, it never happened, and the morons who claim
it did are NOT even reputable physicists!

Nothing like this had ever done before. And this was the
point at which it was discovered that Pain Hurts.

That's the Lesson of Consequences All had to learn.
----------------------------------------

That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you're trying to say.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:44:28 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

That's what I've been trying to tell you. Do you or do
you not believe in free will? What you've been proposing is
tantamount to "relieving" every being of it, not just its
consequences. Free will is totally valueless unless we learn
the lesson of _consequences_. That's what timebound
existence is all about.
----------------------------

Mr. Walz, would you please be so kind as to do the courtesy of citing
exactly when and where I am alleged to have said this? Because I have
never said this, ergo you are a liar or hallucinating.

Thank you.
Rich

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:19:08 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:04:24 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:57:08 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:21:49 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
Yup. Get your priorities in order; resolve your own
pain(s) and cause as few new ones for others as possible.
Leave others to do the same at their own pace.
You are getting close, but there are beings who are experiencing
the feeling of being at the bottom of a well with no way out.
He cries for help, and all the blessed ones walk by and yell
down at him, "Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, like
we did."

I should also point out that dying horribly may be _the
only way out_, because the being involved deliberately
painted itself into that corner in order to learn not to do
it again next time around, or didn't get it last time
around. Did we go over reincarnation yet?

This is no longer true. I was hoping you might be one who had a chance of
grasping the concept, but the way to end victimhood in general is for each
being to undeny, heal, and redeem its own perpetrator essence.

Just killing Mother more is not the path to healing - it is the path to
death and destruction.

I have just realized that I have been send here from Mother Earth. I am an
emissary. It is time to stop denying Mother. Spirit is redeeming Ahriman
and Lucifer as fast as they get released, but each individual needs to
heal their own will essence, or be tossed with the rest of the denials.

Oh, well - like God said in that earlier book, "You might enjoy the ride."

Infinite Love,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:31:22 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:44:28 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
------------
Note to Rich, this above would indicate a post, not cited, with the
attribution marks in its body:
"
"
In other words it was an accidental fragment, but clearly not yours.

Thanks for this.
Rich

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:43:08 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:45:25 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.
--------------------
No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think,

WHAAAAAT!!????!?!?!

Who in Hell told you this?
-------------
No one HAD to.


That's about the _only_ thing that you have
absolute, unconditional, iron-fisted control over. Your thoughts are
_entirely_ of your own making - there isn't anyplace else for them to have
come from.
----------------
And so you fancy that your education and upbringing had nothing to do
with it at all?? Amazing. You're a simpleton.


Call me what you will, I'm just grateful I'm not you.

Good Luck in your little loop.
Rich
-----------------------

It's no different than it was previously.

YOU just didn't know it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

<snippage for length; my reader pukes above 1K lines>

GNFW, the laws governing the
"inanimate" matter of which we are made

Any phenomenological physicist can tell you that there is no such
thing as "matter" except as a perception, there is only this Life,
and it only exists at all through our personal perceptions, and in
no other form. The principles of Science are prediction and explana-
tion, but of what we really do not know and it does not matter. No
Universe exists where the Big Bang occurred or will ever occur, only
those where it SEEMS to have, and only long ago as a hypothesis.

That way lies Solipsism.

Our thoughts ARE us, but we are not them, we do NOT produce nor do
we govern them! Instead, they PRODUCE *US*! When we pretend that
the product, namely our nature, is something our nature controls,
we have simply inverted cause and effect out of hubris.

I said that. GNFW, all aspects of mentation; awareness,
consciousness, "preferences", "pretenses", "hubris", "what
we are", whatever, are illusory emergent properties of the
complex physical system of our brain at a given time
strictly determined by raw physics. Any parsing of them is
completely arbitrary. If we "invert cause and effect", we
were going to and that's that.

The brain is merely the Mind's representation for its inner
purposes, it is not actual. So is your face in a mirror.

You're well along the Solipsism trail...

Of course Buddhists say that the very few totally random choices
where rule-based Life Systems are "chosen" accidentally is how
Aware Life comes into Being and "we" arise to awareness anyway,
but still, what you are calling "Choice" is ACTUALLY the door OUT
of Life, choice is the very ANTITHESIS of Life. Choice is spinning
the Big Wheel, supposed "choice" then can be seen as Non-Choice,
and random, where the chosen and fixed is Our Life, and apparent
"choice" that is Deterministic Experience of a Life that we cannot
control.

I see a "middle way".

Show me, grasshopper, or you're just being cheeky.

I'll get to it, when you're ready.

But GNFW "what we want" is as strictly determined as
everything else, and "awareness", adversity and evolution
are all emergent illusions.

All is illusion, but REAL illusions.

Real... illusions. Right.

Okay. Acceptable. But there is no other "level". Smaller than
you can see is no more than a hypotehtical, a way of talking
about rules and what we see on "macro"-screens and displays,
and NOT some "Real" place things happen.

Why do you say "there is no other "level""? QM clearly
operates in the Very Small with entirely different rules
than in the Newtonian (shorthand again) human-sized world,
and at high velocities, the totally counter-intuitive
Relativities hold sway.
----------------------
Small is a word, we don't "see" "THROUGH" a microscope, we
see THE microscope and its representation.

By your lights, we do no such thing. We see only what we
(believe) our eyes tell our optic nerves to represent within
our optic cortexes.

Do you call these and similar counterintuitive things
"hypothetical" solely because our sensoria are inadequate to
accept direct sensory input in their relevant regimes? Do
you not trust your sensory extensions (instruments) as far
as your understanding of their operation allows you to? Is
what your microscope or oscilloscope shows you "unreal"?
------------------------------------
Even our senses and the supposed organs we use are merely
representations of WHAT we "see". We cannot see "really small".
Even when welook in a magnifying glass we see only what it
shows us large-sized. These are features of the behavior of
that tool, not actually "micro-sized".

The very small does not actually have to exist to do what
is neceesary to be an explnation of the world, the mythology
of its existence is unrelated to its utility to us. When we
look at a screen and say it is "very small" we are not talking
about a real place, but only about physical principles best
left to mathematics. All we see is the nature of what we look
WITH, not "through".

Complete Solipsism.

What do you think when such "hypotheticals" intrude into
the human-sized world? What do you make of lasers, BECs
large enough to see, superfluid LHe, Young's experiment? How
about the relativistic corrections necessary to prevent
pincushioning in a large color CRT?
------------------------------------
Even our perception of distance using vision is an ilusory percept.
What is "distance", it is a geometric energy difference that means
effort will be required to get "there" from "here". These are merely
representational referents, what would they mean if you were blind?
Distance doesn't exist to someone blind from birth. Not as "space"
it doesn't. On our visual field, "distance" is merely a representation.
Things that are "far away" are less important and can't touch us now.

Visual space and haptic space may appear to be two
completely different things, yet the blind manage to map
them accurately.

Things ONLY REALLY happen inside LIVES!!

In the direct experiential sense, yes, but the forces
operating in the universe as a whole are enormously
different from what we can experience directly, and our
experiences are subject to their influences. Do you actually
believe that unlistened-to falling trees make no sound? Did
the Milky Way not rotate until we noticed evidence for it
and came to a consensus that it was valid?

Belief in unseeable myths is entirely irrelevant.

You did not answer my questions.

Similarly, inside our brains things are going on that we
can have no direct experience of. We can only extract what
you call "hypotheticals" which I suspect correlates to what
I call "objective data".

Nope. Your perceptions are entirely your representational
preconceptions.

The question of objectivity arises when we try to map one
person's perceptions to another's. That's how we identify
and eliminate preconceptions.

The objective data increasingly shows that
non-determinism plays a very small but significant part in
extremely complex, self-interacting systems.

There's absolutely nothing that supports this, no principle of
Science, not even any example of it. You're pretending without
having ever seen it, that we can generate randomness. We cannot.

You're pretending that your assumption that randomness
does not exist proves itself.

This has nothing to do with microtubules,

Oh thank god.

Er, which non-existent one?

the simple fact that
the electron motions that underlie the mentational processes
I describe earlier are not as certain as you apparently want
to believe.

Once they happen, then they are as certain as they will ever
be and as they ever need to be to prove my point.

_Once they happen_.

Please don't tell me you're one of those that reject the
consequences of things outside your direct sensorium. If you
do, there's no point in continuing.

There is nothing outside my sensorium. Or yours.
There needn't be, so there isn't. That's why.
The "World" exists WITHIN your life as a representation TO
your life. This is obviously so because we cannot show that
ANYTHING exists outside our Life. No one CAN EVER show that.

Then your Revolution cannot occur outside your skull. How
do you know it already hasn't?

Besides, GNFW whether or not we become "a lot nicer to
each other" is similarly not in our control. Either we were
going to all along, or not.

If our species shows itself worthy of survival, then it will by
cooperation, and not by banditry.

Things are caused, and different kinds of causes have different
effects.

Only as you imagine them within your Solipsistic skull.

And what we do to protect ourselves must be tempered with this
knowledge. In fact, what we do to perfect Humanity MUST become
INFORMED by this principle, that individually we do not choose,
and that we only are changed by the efforts of one another, and
that this happens against our supposed "Free Will" most often!!!

GNFW, "what we do to protect ourselves" and "what we do
to perfect Humanity" is already set more firmly than in stone.

Nonesuch, the last 35 years has proven change is faster than we can
even admit.

GNFW apparent alterations in the rate of social change
are illusory. It was always going to happen at the observed
rate.

GNFW, all this is predetermined. They're just falling
down a potential set up long ago, just going through motions.

there is no proof that anything is prior to anything else,
not even different lives.

Now you reject causality.

Nothing exists except as memories.

Without causality there can be nothing _to_ remember.

"Appropriateness" is a value judgement; my values say
that it's a waste of time and resources. Just smoke
incurable criminals economically and get on with life.

To do so without informing others who might be dissuadable
is folly.

Nope. Just universal testing ASAP and case-specific
testing as it comes up until then. Warning incurables like
psychopaths is pointless; they don't believe it applies to
them because they're "special".

Not all criminals are psychopaths. Some are simply neurotic,
not psychotic.

Those are curables.

Physically torturing... is simply a waste of the
participants' time which could be used productively. Simply
killing would-be criminals before they can commit crimes is
more economical. I guess I'm just not as bloodthirsty as you
are.

The problem is that most criminals are created by their parents.
Society would have to kill their children, MOST children, in
fact, and that is counter-productive.

GNFW their parents are simply falling down the potential
established by the society at large. Changing society
incrementally would ameliorate this over time (which is
what's been happening, in case you hadn't noticed).

Hatred is heart-warming? Yeesh. "Lizard brain-warming",
maybe.

Nonsense.
Everyone wants to kill the people they hate,

Now you presume to know what everyone "wants".

Plain "automatons" are not aware. But, you see, we are not merely
automatons, but AWARE automatons who STILL WILL do nothing other
than what we are destined to DO by cause and effect! Awareness
changes what we'll do, but not the fact that it is deterministic.

But GNFW, awareness is also illusory.

Awareness *IS* ALL Illusion

Yep, pure Solipsism.

BTW, would you care to explain how, in that context, the
latter distinction in belief can occur at all, without just
saying "because it had to"? Or did I answer that above?

Hence the only place and time to try to change anyone's
behavior, or to place blame for their past behaviors, is the
Big Bang (or First Cause of your choice).

Sounds like baloney to me.
Sounds like logic to me.

There is no "big bang".

"Or First Cause of your choice".

Reality produces All Possible Lives and lives them all,

MWI of psychology?

All must be lived to complete Infinitude.

How do you know that?

Take (Big Bang) to
mean "origin of humans" or "origin of the genetic influences
which determine our responses".

Ain't any, our Life is random and they self-select the natural
laws of the universe so as to fit in it seemlessly and appear to
be "caused" by prior "lives" supposedly "earlier" than yours.

Recursive MWI?

Lessee here; GNFW, "who and what we are" is a compound of
genetics and sensory input, yes? Then go as far back as
whatever you may choose to call the first human. That
person's life was as pre-determined as ours because it lives
by the same physics as we do. Its influence on all
subsequent others, and theirs on each other, is equally
pre-determined. All else is illusion.
------------------
No, actually we are born and the entire World/Life/Universe grows out
of *US*.

And we are born into what?

A perfect picture of a chain of puppets. No change, no
choice, no "influence" beyond what was pre-determined.

There are no "puppets" because there is no puppeteer.

Never said there was one.

Our Life simply happens.

Thus:

Specifying torture as a "punishment" is equally futile.
No threat will deter those who cannot choose to be deterred.

Note _cannot choose to_, not _choose not to_".

Um, if I have no free will, how can I lie?

You can't unless you're going to.

Okay, definitional mismatch here. To me, the verb "to
lie" means to tell an untruth _deliberately_, as in
deliberating whether or not to do so, then deciding to do
so. That final step requires that I have self-directable intent.

There isn't any such thing as "deliberate", it's a lie.

GNFW it's an inevitable output of a mental state machine.

It's called disingenuity. It's a left-handed favor to you to accuse
you of telling falsehood intentionally to deceive, rather than accuse
you of merely being stupid. Even without "free will" you can have
the motive to deceive intentionally.

No, I cannot. It was handed down to me as inevitably as
water running downhill. GNFW "motive" is illusory.

But GNFW that motive is pre-determined. I have no option
but to follow its course. There can be no self-directable
intent other than its illusion because "self" is an illusion.
------------------------
Geez!: PAY ATTENTION, DUMMY!

STOP YELLING, ASSHOLE!

Your intent in your mind is ALSO completely Determined.
You cannot change it, unless changing it is also Determined.

Then it isn't _my_ intent. It's secondhand at best,
infinite-hand at worst.

You are Determined by Fate to lie, IF you do so.
If not, then you weren't!

Them by my definition, it isn't lying.

And GNFW stupidity is equally illusory.

You are merely a shallow mind.

For the concept of stupidity to have any meaning, it must
be possible to relate one mind's operative characteristics
to another's. Your Solipsistic view makes that impossible.

I _cannot_ lie in that
sense since I have no volition other than the illusory sort
predetermined by my experiences etc. If I'm going to tell an
untruth, it's a simple direct consequence of the cascade of
events that shaped my experiences etc., not because I choose
to. Such an act would, as you say, be a violation of
physical law as blatant as a physical object exceeding c in
vacuo.

But still, whether you can help it or not, you're lying and a liar.

Nope, that requires self-directed intent. GNFW, none can
exist.

In a sense you're right, because you can't help what you say, but
if it is an untruth it is still a lie.

Your choice of words like "lie" is completely arbitrary,
determined by the way your mind is fated to work. GNFW there
can be no such thing as a lie.

If you can watch a logic gate produce a "false" output
and call it a liar, then you can call a human a liar. In no
other Newtonian sense can a human lie.

and you know that a large enough logic array
with sequential feedback can conceal data intentfully.
They're called
secure encryption systems.

By my definition, they're not lying. They're producing a
true output directly dependent on their inputs and hardware
configuration. The apparent discrepancy only exists in the
absence of knowledge of the encryption key and how to apply it.

By your definition, which apparently assumes that the
relevant analog of the encryption key is lost in the mists
of time and/or hidden in the enormous complexity of the
ongoingt interactions both within and outside his mind, you
are not justified calling a human a liar because you know
the key exists, you just don't have it handy.

Alright, but when computers gain Self-Awareness there will
be a similar situation to a "lie".

No. There is no essential difference between your model
of human minds and silicon gates producing outputs that can
be grouped into a neat truth table except the relative
complexity of human minds, hence the relative complexity of
our truth tables.

GNFW, phrases like like "self-aware" are red herrings.

You have not demonstrated the existence of humans'
"encryption key". But you believe it exists, therefore by
_your_ definitions humans cannot lie.

Hence there's no fault to be found, no point in placing
blame except as above, no point in "punishment", no hope for
deterrence to work.

Blame, no, death and/or torture as deterence, yes. Re-education if
possible, even by force.

No. GNFW either these measures would have have the
"desired" effect all along, or not.

No guarantees, but the right to do so inself-defense
and its efficacy can be determined by experiment.

Determinism means "experiments" are illusions; there can
be only one possible outcome.

Desperate pretense doesn't become you.

Neither desperation nor pretense. This is
MetaphysicsLand, and Newton is a set of waterwings keeping
you out of the deeper, more interesting parts.

Quit disingenuous posturing. You know you can't defend that, you
even insist you don't re: QM. You know this has nothing whatsoever
to do with Newton v Einstein/QM.

I know no such things. Make fewer assumptions.

Well if you just WANT to act stupid...

Well if you just WANT to generate insults rather than
think...

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Braindead]

Mark! It's Steve
Are you there?

 

[Charles Schuler]

RSW and his ilk have found a new and fertile venue via the Internet. A
seemingly endless supply of minds to corrupt. I cringe when I read about
teachers and professors who proudly acclaim their direction of students to
the Internet for projects, research (?), and general growth. Strange thing
the Internet; nuggets of gold floating in sewage.