Chip with simple program for Toy

[RichD]

On Apr 1, HMSBeagle <jsb...@andromeda.org> wrote:

There is no physics experiment that you
can design and run, which has a different
outcome depending on whether consciousness is present in the
experiment or not.

How could YOU ever be sure of this?

Brian Greene gets yanked into this same trap every time he gives a
lecture in front of philosophers.

What a dope!
You figure he would have learned by now.

Eventually you get into this cartesian spiral where the
knob on the instruments themselves are in a
"superposition" until a human being looks at them.
Then eventually the stars in the sky are all in a
superposition until some human on
planet earth looks up, and suddenly they all snap
into place. This is wholly ludicrous.

um, I hate to be rude or anything, but... how do you know?

There are numerous (all equally valid) interpretations of
quantum mechanics. The "Magical Consciousness
collapses the wave function" nonsense is only 1 possible
interpretation out of at least 6 other ones that you can
subscribe to.

But they all have to contend with the same facts,
the same randomness, the same wave-particle duality
and non-locality.

--
Rich

 

[RichD]

On Apr 1, HMSBeagle <jsb...@andromeda.org> wrote:

Whenever the active detector fails to click, the
experimenter deduces (or assumes) the electron
traversed the other slit. Thus, the interaction
occurs in the observer's mind!

What is it that you are trying to do here? Are you trying
to PROVE a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics?
I hope you realize that's impossible and self-defeating.

There are several other interpretations of QM that are as equally
valid as the one you seem to be trying to "prove" to us here.

I personally subscribe to the Quantum Decoherence Interpretation,
since you dont have to bother with ontological questions and its
easily shown how it works on a chalkboard. It also contains no
references to "observesr" or "consciousness"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

How does it explain the double slit experiment?

I can talk at length about various interpretations of quantum
mechanics and their particular plusses and minuses. (If you are
interested).

Be my guest...

--
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

RichD wrote:

On Apr 2, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

What fits the facts better than postulating another entity, is
simply to note Godels theorem. That is, things can be true but not
derivable.

Will you leave Godel out of it? His result was
highly technical, pertaining to a specific class
of logics.

Oh dear...

Godel applies to *any* sytem that is based on arithmatic. Period.

We "explain" everything, ultimately by physics, that is, *equations* that
model reality. Physics is based on arithmetic, ergo, Godel is applicable to
consciouness.

The "hard problem" resolves to the inability to write.

Consciouness = F(electrons, protons, quarks, etc)

This is an *equation* based on arithmetic. Godel says, that this equation
may exist, but that we cant necessarily derive it. Hence, the lack of this
derivation to date, does not infer that thee is something missing like a
soul.

You obviously have never studied it,
your pseudo-expertise is 'man in the street',
and you sound like a nimrod every time you
make reference.

Yeah, if you actually understood, what Godel means. Unfortunately, many
don't seem to have the ability to extrapolate how results in one field can
get applied to another.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Daryl McCullough wrote:

Kevin Aylward says...

Daryl McCullough wrote:
Kevin Aylward says...


Electrons don't feel pain. We do. Why? Thats the hard problem.

"Electrons don't feel pain" is *NOT* an observation that
needs to be explained. It is an *assumption*.

I asking why do we feel pain. Not why electrons don't.

Then why did you add "Electrons don't feel pain"?

Oh dear. To point out the difference.

Not feeling pain is the default.

Why should that be?

For electrons, the same reason that I don't need to prove a teapot flying
out in space don't exist.

Oh, go jump in a lake. All four of my children are adopted, and
I love them very much.

Then how do you know that you love them as much as if they were your
own?

I would say I know more about it than you do.

Oh... well I do have some personal experience in this particular field as
well.

Obviously a sore point with you. A reason many can not stomach
Darwian evolution as it demands much that many find uncomfortable.

The evolution argument on this is pretty clear, those that loved
adopted children equally as their own genetic children, would be at
a replication disadvantage to those that loved their own child genes
more.

The fact that it might be an advantage
for individuals to do X does *not* mean that there is a genetic
predisposition to do X, and the fact that there is a genetic
predisposition to do X does not mean that every individual will
do X.

As I noted, if a Replicant has been subjected to *millions* of generations
of variation, selection and replication, it is overwhelming that certain
predispositions to do X exist.

You last example really shows that you simply don't understand evolution. It
is a statistical theory. The gene/meme pools have *statistical
distributions*, so of course, there is a finite probability that an
individual will something contrary to the mean.

Look at the range of variation in the world in the way
that biological parents take care of their children. Some parents
defend their children with their lives, some parents abandon their
children (which is they way that children become eligible for
adoption) and some parents murder their children.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070226152443.htm

This is er.. one study, which this referance states:

"In academia, the new findings contradict claims by evolutionary
psychologists that parents are born to dote on their biological children
more than their adoptive children."

So we have *one* apparent contradiction against the wealth of evolutionary
psychologists evidence.

"Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their
children compared with biological parents, according to the results
of a national study that challenges the more conventional view --
emphasized in legal and scholarly debates -- that children are better
off with their biological parents."

The claim "Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in
their children compared with biological parents" with the above, has a very
simple explanation.

Those with more money can spend more. Period. If the extra spent is not a
relative improvement to available resources then this study is not very
supportive of adoptive parents being allegedly better. I will have to read
the referenced paper to see exactly what is being claimed, and what the
potential biases are.

Show me some studies that show poor people are willing to spend 80% of their
resources on adopted children.

You seem to prefer that actual data not spoil your theories,
and that your theories not spoil your preconceptions.

Cherry picking one off studies does not dismantle the entire field of
evolution.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

RichD wrote:

On Apr 2, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
This has relevance to the seemingly-endless "free will" debates; we
can argue forever as to whether or not free will "really" exists, but
I would claim the question itself is irrelevant. We FEEL as though
we have free will (which takes care of the internal concerns),

We FEEL like the earth is the center of the universe...

and whether our actions as externally observed as the
result of "real" free will or random physical processes
makes no difference to any
external concerns - they are equally unpredictable either way.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily, if QM is correct.

? If human behavior is the product

of phsyical processes (cellular biology), behavior
should, in principle, be predictable, given initial
conditions. The unpredictability stems from the
grossness of our instruments, and our curent
state of ignorance.

Ultimately the chemical interactions are at the quantum level, hence,
inherently unpredictable.


--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xLcQh.41626$Lz4.35150@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...



I certainly claim that the mind is a sole function of the physical
brain, but I also claim that it is not a "thing" either.

You're going to have to work a bit on just what you mean by
"thing," I think. Certainly it is not a material object, but if it is
a function of the physical brain, then how is "mind" any less
of a "thing" than, say, the software currently residing in and
running on my PC?

Actually, that's a good analogy. I am glad you pointed this out. Software is
virtual. It only physically exists on some piece of hardware, but its
concepts transcends the hardware it resides on.

Software can not physically do anything either. A hardware machine takes
physical action dependant on physical states. We use the terms of software
control, but software itself, is not physical, so it cant do anything.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BMcQh.41627$Lz4.24712@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

A root assumption here is that external measurements is all there is
to an object. The classic illustration is the "if a leaf falls of a
tree in a forest and no one hears it, doe it really fall".

I think the CLASSIC version of this ends in "does it make a
SOUND," and the only reasonable answer to that one is
"just what do you mean by 'sound'?"


Consider a black box. It may be true that external measurements are
all that are relevant to the external instrument, but that is not
the case for those instruments inside the box. The measurements
matter to them.

However, if there is absolutely no way for those "instruments inside"
to communicate with or in any way affect the external world, they
might as well not exist; they are of no concern or practical
importance with respect to any definitions or models being developed
in that external world, whatsoever.

Which is what I said, but it *does* matter for the person inside the box.
That is, it mattes for the first person consciousness, and this person is
just as valid as claiming that the models being developed in the external
world are not particular important either.

This has relevance to the seemingly-endless "free will" debates; we
can argue forever as to whether or not free will "really" exists, but
I would claim the question itself is irrelevant. We FEEL as though
we have free will (which takes care of the internal concerns), and
whether our actions as externally observed as the result of "real"
free will or random physical processes makes no difference to any
external concerns - they are equally unpredictable either way.
So what, precisely, would the point of the discussion BE, then?

Actually, I don't. Now that I understand that at root level, I am machine
under the illusion of free will, it effects my behaviour in ways it wouldn't
have. Even writing this is no choice that I made

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Bob Myers]

"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175618745.650921.47740@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

and whether our actions as externally observed as the
result of "real" free will or random physical processes
makes no difference to any
external concerns - they are equally unpredictable either way.

Not necessarily. If human behavior is the product
of phsyical processes (cellular biology), behavior
should, in principle, be predictable, given initial
conditions.

And hence my specification of truly "random physical
processes" in the above; i.e., this makes the assumption
that the fundamental processes in question are effectively
truly random, ala QM, hence could never be completely
determined. There could either be an impossibly large
number of variables to account for, or there is one or
more truly chaotic contributors to the behavior of the
system. The point was in any case that I cannot
externally distinguish "true free will" from the behavior
of a truly random system which still would not involve
that pesky notion of "conscious" decision-making.
For instance, I can fairly easily make a true random
number generator, and cause the output of a "decision
making" program to depend entirely or in part on those
random numbers. If that "in part" dependence is done
with a moderate amount of cleverness, I would suggest that
the results are externally indistinguishable from those given
by an entity with supposed "free will."

It's like thermodynamics. The microscopic
physics was for a long time a mystery, then
Maxwsll and Bolzman figured out the kinetic
theory, with atoms and all. Should they have
thrown up their hands and said "It's statistical,
unpredictable, what's the point?"

Not at all, and not even a good example. The
behavior of atoms, etc., under these theories is
"predictable" in precisely the same way that my
"free will" actions are - statistically, over a sufficiently
large number of trials. You could look back on
my personal history and make some pretty good
statistical predictions regarding, say, how often I
will choose to have toast for breakfast. You
cannot with certainty make a prediction about my
choice on any given day, to any better degree than
you can predict the course of a given atom. But
that inability to be specific in the individual cases
has no bearing on the usefulness of the overall
model, or the "point" of developing it.

We ask questions and try to understood things.
We're human. Does this really need to be spelled out?
We have no choice, we're programmed...

Apparently these DO need to be spelled out, as these are
precisely the issues - especially that last statement - that
this thread has been addressing.

Bob M.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Bob Myers wrote:

You're going to have to work a bit on just what you mean by
"thing," I think. Certainly it is not a material object, but if it is
a function of the physical brain, then how is "mind" any less
of a "thing" than, say, the software currently residing in and
running on my PC?

Bob M.

Hi Bob!


Good argument.


Any thought could be reduced to atomic (or even smaller) functions. And
they can be influenced, as e.g. a more pure copper-wire can lead
current better, better siemens value, lower resist.

I think the lowest (smallest) parts of Physics should be known for that
thematic. Otherwise it's better to talk about in a 'given dimension',
where both end-sides can be argumented fundamentally.


So an ill body do have its own weird atomic constellations, which are
influencing the clear mind.

As good Fish food can extend your brain-powers, but the Software (your
argument again...) stays the same , you just feed the processing
machine with better food (more MHz....).
But not the axiom (software)... It can be influenced by good and bad
thoughts, ideas, actions, etc. IMHO.



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Software can not physically do anything either. A hardware machine
takes physical action dependant on physical states. We use the terms
of software control, but software itself, is not physical, so it cant
do anything.

????


It's been updated in every second, or are you still an
Australopithecus-Zeuxis (kobold like pre-homonid)?



I know, our Brain is unique. But it is not only the Brain which made us
so special...

Evolution takes action without our Brain , but our Brain Complexity
evolved so far that we can make slight sense about evolution itself.



By the way... Is our Brain volume (cubic inch) increasing or decreasing
actually? Because many scientists declare the Brain volume growing, as
our key to success. Just serious and interested into, maybe you have
any statistics about....? Or any other News about Brain updates, I
haven't heard yet...




Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Kevin Aylward says...

Daryl McCullough wrote:
Kevin Aylward says...

Daryl McCullough wrote:

Electrons don't feel pain. We do. Why? Thats the hard problem.

"Electrons don't feel pain" is *NOT* an observation that
needs to be explained. It is an *assumption*.

I asking why do we feel pain. Not why electrons don't.

Then why did you add "Electrons don't feel pain"?

Oh dear. To point out the difference.

You haven't pointed out any difference.
Look, this is getting tedious. You seem
to be only interested in evidence that
supports your theories, and only interested
in theories that support your preconceptions.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

On Apr 3, 7:45 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 2, "Bob Myers" <nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:

This has relevance to the seemingly-endless "free will" debates; we
can argue forever as to whether or not free will "really" exists, but
I would claim the question itself is irrelevant. We FEEL as though
we have free will (which takes care of the internal concerns),

We FEEL like the earth is the center of the universe...

I guess you meant it as a joke, but it's an unsuccessful one. Isn't
the difference between FEELings about internal subjects and FEELings
about external ones clear to you? The former is everything, the latter
may as well be just an illusion,

and whether our actions as externally observed as the
result of "real" free will or random physical processes
makes no difference to any
external concerns - they are equally unpredictable either way.

Not necessarily. If human behavior is the product
of phsyical processes (cellular biology), behavior
should, in principle, be predictable, given initial
conditions. The unpredictability stems from the
grossness of our instruments, and our curent
state of ignorance.

[...]

The other bit is the question of whether there is
some non-material force at work, as nearly
everyone believes.

So what, precisely, would the point of the discussion BE, then?

You've made an excellent point - free will isn't (and can't be) the

point of discussion. Exactly like our own existance can't be (because
we FEEL it, Rich), not matter how many scientists come with
'experimental' or 'theoretic' 'proofs' that we don't exist (if ever
there'll be such a fool scientist). Free will could as well be
accepted as an axiom, for the points stated by you, me (in previous
posts) and many other. The point of discussing whether science
contradicts free will ('scientific' determinism)is not to save free
will - it's to save science (okay, less dramatically, to save the
theory currently in fashion). Those who claim there's no actual
contradiction actually claim that we can continue using our current
theories.

This point seems to be missed by some. Maybe that's (partially)
because of the unclearness concerning the doamin of debate - it's
philosophy, not physics. Generally, adopting or extrapolating data/
theories from one field to another is (almost) impossible. Take as an
axample the Goedel theorems - almost any philosopher looking on them
yelled 'hey, there're some obvious philosophical conclussions I can
make out of them!' and yet, (almost) non succeeded (at least, I know
of no such conclussions which enjoy vast agreement). Even Mechanism
couldn't be refuted by them, although that refutation seems straight-
forward. I want to say that physicists extrapolating conclussions from
physics to philosophy (or worse, failing to see that it's really a
philosophical debate and not physical) can (almost) safely be always
ignored...

Generally, knowledge of physics isn't required in philosophy (even
in philosophy of physics), although it's certainly an advantage. It
seems that's one of the cases in which it's actually a disadvantage...
(more precisely, certain attitudes which tend to come with physics
knowledge are).

We ask questions and try to understood things.
We're human. Does this really need to be spelled out?
We have no choice, we're programmed...

Your program is really boring - you keep saying that sentence over
and over again. Why don't you say, instead, 'Okay, you've CONVINCED
me. I choose to be convinced I can choose to be conviced that I can
choose', or something alike?

--
Rich

 

On Apr 3, 9:09 pm, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Bob Myers wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xLcQh.41626$Lz4.35150@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...


[...] Software is
virtual. It only physically exists on some piece of hardware, but its
concepts transcends the hardware it resides on.

Strange statements from a materialist.... You actually admit

software isn't physical, it has some relation to physical reality
(hardware), and acts of physical things (you deny it below, but don't
you admit that a PC with software acts differently from one without?).
Sounds pretty much like existance of non-physical / non-material
objects with detectable influence on physical world (note that these
statements also apply to various mathematical objects). How does this
get along with your materialist views?

Software can not physically do anything either. A hardware machine takes
physical action dependant on physical states. We use the terms of software
control, but software itself, is not physical, so it cant do anything.

--
Kevin Aylward
k...@anasoftEXTRACT.co.ukwww.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

partso2@yahoo.com wrote:

On Apr 3, 9:09 pm, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xLcQh.41626$Lz4.35150@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...


[...] Software is
virtual. It only physically exists on some piece of hardware, but its
concepts transcends the hardware it resides on.

Strange statements from a materialist.... You actually admit
software isn't physical, it has some relation to physical reality
(hardware), and acts of physical things (you deny it below, but don't
you admit that a PC with software acts differently from one without?).

Its not the software, its the physical embodiment of the software that does
the work.

Software when physicaliesed, is the electronic state in physical hardware.
A page of code on paper does absolutly nothing.

Sounds pretty much like existance of non-physical / non-material
objects with detectable influence on physical world

Only cursory, but not in reality.

(note that these
statements also apply to various mathematical objects). How does this
get along with your materialist views?

No problem at all.

Software only "controls" things by virtue that is embodied in real physical
hardware. The best word I can think of is virtual. That is, the information
has abstract relevance, but without a physical machine, the information is
useless.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Software can not physically do anything either. A hardware machine
takes physical action dependant on physical states. We use the terms
of software control, but software itself, is not physical, so it cant
do anything.


????



It's been updated in every second, or are you still an
Australopithecus-Zeuxis (kobold like pre-homonid)?



I know, our Brain is unique. But it is not only the Brain which made
us so special...

Evolution takes action without our Brain , but our Brain Complexity
evolved so far that we can make slight sense about evolution itself.



By the way... Is our Brain volume (cubic inch) increasing or
decreasing actually? Because many scientists declare the Brain volume
growing, as our key to success. Just serious and interested into,
maybe you have any statistics about....? Or any other News about
Brain updates, I haven't heard yet...

My information is that brain size has maxed out. The idea is that signals
take to long to transverse bigger brains,.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

On Apr 4, 8:33 pm, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

part...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:09 pm, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xLcQh.41626$Lz4.35150@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

[...] Software is
virtual. It only physically exists on some piece of hardware, but its
concepts transcends the hardware it resides on.

Strange statements from a materialist.... You actually admit
software isn't physical, it has some relation to physical reality
(hardware), and acts of physical things (you deny it below, but don't
you admit that a PC with software acts differently from one without?).

Its not the software, its the physical embodiment of the software that does
the work.

Software when physicaliesed, is the electronic state in physical hardware.
A page of code on paper does absolutly nothing.

[...]

(note that these
statements also apply to various mathematical objects). How does this
get along with your materialist views?

No problem at all.

Software only "controls" things by virtue that is embodied in real physical
hardware. The best word I can think of is virtual. That is, the information
has abstract relevance, but without a physical machine, the information is
useless.

Okay, so your point is that software without hardware is useless, in

the physical sense (it may still be thought of as 'existing' and
having relations to other non-physical things, such as other
softwares. E.g., the SW could be said to be 'embodied' or 'part of'
another one. Here we actually talk of algorithms but I don't see the
difference in this context). But, yet, a computer without SW is also
useless. SW (and other non-physical objects) must have proper means to
be physicaliesed (mind needs brain etc.) to be able to act physically,
but after all that, if there're two computers, identical in hardware
but still act differently, wouldn't you say that the difference is non-
physical? and that difference can be physically detected? I'm just
curious on your views.

--
Kevin Aylward
k...@anasoftEXTRACT.co.ukwww.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Charles Schuler]

Umm, Michelle, you do realize where you posted this; or do you?

 

On Apr 4, 8:33 pm, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

part...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:09 pm, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xLcQh.41626$Lz4.35150@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

[...]

Software only "controls" things by virtue that is embodied in real physical
hardware. The best word I can think of is virtual. That is, the information
has abstract relevance, but without a physical machine, the information is
useless.

I'll try to phrase my last post clearer. Hhmm. I'm not talking about

usefulness. You admit the information has relevance (btw it isn't
necessarily abstract) - doesn't it mean it has some sort of existance?
Let's put it that way. The software (or algorithm) may have many
different physicalisations (if that's the word) - the electrons in my
brain, the magnetic polarity on the hard drive, some electric states
of registers of the computer's memory (if that's it) - a lot, lot
different arrangements of these as there're a lot of programming
languages and different platforms. Don't you think these are all
manifestations of the same entity? after all, if I steal your program
and code it in another language, and you sue me, can I claim that it's
a totally different magnetic polarity/electron arrangement (which is
true) and therefore has no relation to your original software? if so,
programmers should be grateful that there aren't many meaterialist
judges...

If you agree there's some sort of abstract existance which can
influence the physical world, well, you may still not be a real
dualist, but at least you shouldn't have any real problem with free
will, and you may find that the consciousness' Hard Problems aren't so
hard, after all.

--
Kevin Aylward
k...@anasoftEXTRACT.co.ukwww.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[JeffM]

was: WANT PROOF....GOT IT RIGHT HERE !!

Charles Schuler wrote:

Umm, Michelle, you do realize where you posted this; or do you?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?filter=0&num=100&q=websitemirror.org&enc_author=bcRDmRkAAABBaHZlPgxWBQ37L5om9IO1-tpoT5PwLSR6UIHNBXIAZQ&scoring=d
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?filter=0&num=100&q=-websitemirror.org&enc_author=bcRDmRkAAABBaHZlPgxWBQ37L5om9IO1-tpoT5PwLSR6UIHNBXIAZQ&scoring=d

 

[BogusID]

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:1175723194.328719.303470@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

was: WANT PROOF....GOT IT RIGHT HERE !!

Yup, chain spam, inciting our deepest fears and urging panic for the end of
the world as we know it.
The main page discusses natural gas reserves, how they are linked, are
filling with Oxygen and how all of America will burn.

For those who like to spam the spammers, or sign them up to stuff:

keep_me_informed@websitemirror.net
comments-questions@websitemirror.net
remove@websitemirror.net