EAGLE Netlist conversion

Fred Bloggs · Dec 1, 2004

John Larkin wrote:

Consistant isn't the same as accurate.

Timesteps are usually set to a small fraction of the time any circuit
event is expected to take, like 1/100 or 1/1000 or something. You
can't expect to accurately simulate a 5 ms period when time is
quantized to 1 ms. Try 1 us maybe.

My rule is to make the time step as small as possible consistant with
simulation time. When in doubt, change the step time maybe 2:1 in
either direction; if the sim changes visibly, your steps are too
coarse by 10:1 at least.

What's a bummer is to have a circuit with a very high Q or widely
varying time constants; small dt and slow elements make for hour-long
transient runs.

John

Maybe things have changed, but the original SPICE timestep specification
had to do with times at which the simulation results are stored for
output display and NOT the mathematical time increment size required for
convergence of the integration algorithms which was derived from error
tolerance parameters.

Jim Thompson · Dec 1, 2004

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:32:50 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[snip]

I have a filet at least once per week, and eat out (non-fast food)
probably 5 times per week ;-)

I eat out about 10 times a week, but I'm eating 5 meals
a day right now for training purposes. My favorites are
Tomaso's, Z'Tejas, Charleston's, and Red Lobster (does
a great cajun trout if you tell them no oil). No it's
not cheap. But then neither am I.

I don't do Z'Tejas... too damned noisy.

BTW, filet is flavorless trash meat dolled up by
19th-century-grade marketing. You're being ripped off
because you don't know any more about beef than you do
about government or economics.

Buy one at AJ's and then tell me that.

Learn how to cook a strip steak

Too fatty.

or why the GDP is not a
true indicator of the "health of the economy" and then we
can talk.

I do think it matters, although interest rates and employment data
tell more.

And yes, Bush is responsible for the continuing decline in
the value of the dollar, as it is falling along with the
world's confidence that America will remain solvent, which
is compounded by the rate at which Bush is running up our
debt with no means of repaying it.

Naaah! It's subtle, maybe too deep for you. Keep an eye out and
watch what happens to the European economy.

It becomes the world leader the way America always was when
the dollar was strong and other nations actually respected us.

--Blair
"Filet...sheesh."

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 1, 2004

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:37:41 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:09:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Milk is now $4 a gallon, bread $3 a pound, and unless you
make my kind of money, you can forget steak exists.

Basic food is incredibly cheap in this country. One hour's minimum
wage will buy 10 pounds of jasmine rice, 30 pounds of russet potatoes,
15 pounds of beans, 24 hot dogs, or five Burger King basic burgers. Or
feed ten people my favorite breakfast, grits and eggs. Or buy two
bottles of very drinkable red wine. Sure, prime fillet and wild salmon
are expensive, but hardly necessary. The biggest nutritian problem
among the "poor" in America is obesity.

Because our government is sending cash to rich people instead
of spending it on making sure people get proper nourishment.

--Blair
"Have another Krispy Kreme."

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 1, 2004

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:48:23 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Dan Rather's career is like a bare foot sliding thru a warm cow patty.

Apropos.

Rush Limbaugh's career is like a long, strange acid trip.

--Blair
"With permanent brain damage as
the payoff."

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 1, 2004

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:41:09 -0500, "BFoelsch"
<BFoelsch@comcast.ditch.this.net> wrote:

I figured that out in 1968. Haven't watched him or CBS news since.

Of course, some people claim that a dried-out 1968 cow patty is valuable as
fertilizer. To me it's still an old glob of ..........................

[snip]

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Dec 1, 2004

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:32:49 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Consistant isn't the same as accurate.

Timesteps are usually set to a small fraction of the time any circuit
event is expected to take, like 1/100 or 1/1000 or something. You
can't expect to accurately simulate a 5 ms period when time is
quantized to 1 ms. Try 1 us maybe.

My rule is to make the time step as small as possible consistant with
simulation time. When in doubt, change the step time maybe 2:1 in
either direction; if the sim changes visibly, your steps are too
coarse by 10:1 at least.

What's a bummer is to have a circuit with a very high Q or widely
varying time constants; small dt and slow elements make for hour-long
transient runs.

John

Maybe things have changed, but the original SPICE timestep specification
had to do with times at which the simulation results are stored for
output display and NOT the mathematical time increment size required for
convergence of the integration algorithms which was derived from error
tolerance parameters.

Dunno about that, but the only time step settable in CircuitMaker is
the algorithm period. If you set it coarse enough, you can get a
parallel L-C to oscillate, or even a parallel R-C.

I think the Spice interval is adaptive; you can set the min and max
time step, and it gravitates towards the max when not a lot is going
on in the circuit.

My old favorite DOS simulator, ECA, wasn't Spice-based but worked the
same way, only not adaptive. It was a lot better than Spice in many
ways.

Simulators are interesting in that you really have to understand the
circuit and critically evaluate the results or risk believing
nonsense.

John

Mike Engelhardt · Dec 1, 2004

Fred,

Maybe things have changed, but the original SPICE
timestep specification had to do with times at which
the simulation results are stored for output display
and NOT the mathematical time increment size required
for convergence of the integration algorithms which
was derived from error tolerance parameters.

The academic codes have two time step sizes to specify.
The first one is as you describe. It was required in
the old days because the outputs were ASCII plots and
you had to tell it how often to print a line. The
timestep doesn't do much these days and even less in
a program like LTspice since it stores data as
compressed vector graphics independent of any regular
time step size.

John would be talking about the other timestep, the
fourth number on the .tran command, which is a
stipulation of the maximum timestep size over which
the circuit reactances can be integrated.

--Mike

Spehro Pefhany · Dec 1, 2004

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:01:28 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:45:52 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

What I wish could happen is that people would figure out that da gubmint
should stop spending money when they run out, like the taxpayers have to
do.

You can pay your taxes with your credit card. Transparently if
your credit card issuer keeps sending you those ridiculous paper
checks.

Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream - Uncle Sugardaddy has an infinite credit
line.

No we don't.

Governments do go bankrupt.

But they can print all the money they need.

John

And this is what the result looks like:

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DXY0&v=dmax

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

John Larkin · Dec 1, 2004

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:45:32 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
An high Euro will flood Europe with imports, kill exports, and destroy
domestic industry. That's a force toward equilibrium.

"Flood" and "kill" are extreme words for what will happen.

Agreed. Usually some less drastic equilibrium happens first.

Meanwhile, Europeans are now 30% wealthier than they were
a short time ago, without having to earn it.

Only if they're buying imports.

Meanwhile, Americans are 30% poorer than they were a short
time ago, also without having earned it.

Not this American. Not unless you define poorer as "30% poorer than if
you had speculated by investing all your assets in Euros at exactly
the right time." My purchasing power is undiminished, so far.

I wonder what the Europeans will do about cars? Will they jack up the
price for BMWs and Mercedes and Porsches to match the currency rate
changes? Or just eat the difference? VW's aren't such a problem, as
they're mostly made in Mexico.

So before you see any reduction in European exports, you're
seeing a huge rise in European exports.

People buy more of something because it's more expensive? Like in the
potato famine, maybe?

John

Blair P. Houghton · Dec 2, 2004

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:32:50 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[snip]

I have a filet at least once per week, and eat out (non-fast food)
probably 5 times per week ;-)

I eat out about 10 times a week, but I'm eating 5 meals
a day right now for training purposes. My favorites are
Tomaso's, Z'Tejas, Charleston's, and Red Lobster (does
a great cajun trout if you tell them no oil). No it's
not cheap. But then neither am I.

I don't do Z'Tejas... too damned noisy.

We live in Ahwatukee. There's nowhere "quiet".

BTW, filet is flavorless trash meat dolled up by
19th-century-grade marketing. You're being ripped off
because you don't know any more about beef than you do
about government or economics.

Buy one at AJ's and then tell me that.

Even worse. Overpriced junk meat at an overpriced meat
shop.

Learn how to cook a strip steak

Too fatty.

If you don't like beef, why didn't you say so?

or why the GDP is not a
true indicator of the "health of the economy" and then we
can talk.

I do think it matters, although interest rates and employment data
tell more.

Interest rates are a clue to the absolute lack of any need
for Bush to throw capital at the wealthy. They were so
flush with cash that they refused to borrow from the Fed
to invest. The problem wasn't a lack of capital, it was
a lack of demand. Bush should have put that money in the
hands of the consumer. Then industry would have someone
to sell its goods to, which would create jobs.

Trickle-down economics never worked. It was a con job
perpetrated by people who knew that most people don't know
anything about economics but react to plausible stories
about things they don't understand.

And yes, Bush is responsible for the continuing decline in
the value of the dollar, as it is falling along with the
world's confidence that America will remain solvent, which
is compounded by the rate at which Bush is running up our
debt with no means of repaying it.

Naaah! It's subtle, maybe too deep for you. Keep an eye out and
watch what happens to the European economy.

It becomes the world leader the way America always was when
the dollar was strong and other nations actually respected us.

"Filet...sheesh."

I predict a sudden collapse in Europe... that socialist shit can not
be sustained.

The EU is not socialist. It just believes that people
shouldn't be conned.

--Blair
"The victim is always the last to know."

Blair P. Houghton · Dec 2, 2004

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:37:41 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:09:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Milk is now $4 a gallon, bread $3 a pound, and unless you
make my kind of money, you can forget steak exists.

Basic food is incredibly cheap in this country. One hour's minimum
wage will buy 10 pounds of jasmine rice, 30 pounds of russet potatoes,
15 pounds of beans, 24 hot dogs, or five Burger King basic burgers. Or
feed ten people my favorite breakfast, grits and eggs. Or buy two
bottles of very drinkable red wine. Sure, prime fillet and wild salmon
are expensive, but hardly necessary. The biggest nutritian problem
among the "poor" in America is obesity.

Because our government is sending cash to rich people instead
of spending it on making sure people get proper nourishment.

"Have another Krispy Kreme."

Poor baby, aren't you "rich"?

I do just fine, but I know that with Bush's policies,
I'm not climbing into the $1M/year bracket without a
Powerball win.

--Blair
"Them that has, crocks the system
to keep the slope slippery."

Jim Thompson · Dec 2, 2004

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 01:06:02 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

[snip]

The EU is not socialist. It just believes that people
shouldn't be conned.

--Blair
"The victim is always the last to know."

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 2, 2004

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:08:56 -0500, "Oppie" <oppie@-nospam-cloud9.net>
wrote:

A little 'cow pie' humor, eh?

btw, why is a cow pie like a blonde?
The older they are, the easier they are to pick up.

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:9hgmq053hrj8qmhsrgp1lc4gsjhfob9u8m@4ax.com...
Dan Rather's career is like a bare foot sliding thru a warm cow patty.

...Jim Thompson

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

R. Steve Walz · Dec 2, 2004

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

in the following, GNFW means "granting no free will". I

We do not have "choice".

In your Newtonian metaphysics (feel free to correct my
misinterpretations/assumptions

That this has anything to do with Newton v Einstein/QM is an unworthy
pretense. There is no such distinction in the physics, both are equally
Deterministic in sharing Theory of Science.

I was merely using Newton as
a handy tag for "clockwork mechanics" here.
------------------------

Except it's unrelated. Determinism is a more advanced concept than
Newtonian mechanism, more akinto QM by its required relationship to
the MWI, Many Worlds Interpetation, which is entirely compatible
with Determinism, and in fact is NOT with ANY OTHER view of the
"free-will" question.

If you want to try to show how QM is strictly
deterministic we'll need a new thread, possibly in say
sci.physics.
------------------------

If reason needs to go elsewhere, then you're in sad shape.

as you are forced by your
programming to see fit)

It's not "programming" in any psychological sense of it being something
one can one can "resist by effort", in fact there is NO such thing as
that.

I said nothing about whether or not "resistance" is
involved or even possible, and I implied no "programmer"
except an impersonal one; the laws of physics. GNFW, _all_
our actions and reactions are the direct causal results of
what went into making us who we are _right now_. Those
causal linkages extend into prehuman times, all the way back
to whatever was the first lifeform _and beyond that_ because
the way any lifeform operates behaviorally is determined by
the physics underlying its structure.
--------------------

Absolutely. QM indeterminacy and "fuzziness" can do naught but
create "Many Words" with our personal Life revealing itself as
ONLY ONE of them, finally.

There is no such thing as "psychology" possible in your
worldview except as a subset of strictly deterministic
physics applicable to the human brain/hormonal system.
-----------------------------

What other kind of psychology would be useful except for one that
attempts to predict and explain so that its Truths, as they become
known, can have good and more advanced Deterministic effect!??
All forms of knowledge are simply more Science and its principles
that are Deterministic. If it is more complex, even too much for us
to totally predict and explain, then so is current physics, and
still it is useful for principled approximation.

The "Big Bang" is a none experiential fiction. Time that is not
experienced is, of course, not of an experiential nature, it is
strictly theoretical and of a different nature than experiencable
time.

Irrelevant nitpicking. 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.

free will is
apparently an illusion possibly generated by the fact that
we can't see the entire chain of interlocked causal
sequences between then and now. There can be no consequences
of choice because there is no choice. What will happen will
happen, and that's it, both for objective physical events
and subjective mentational events, for the same reasons.

No, what we have is the problem if being able to conceive of
a hypothetical, which is part and parcel of our partial awareness.

Conceiving hypotheticals is merely extending awareness
beyond individual direct sensory experience and
interpretation and comparison thereof.
---------------

Except that it confuses people, because they lose track of the fact
that no hypothetical will ever actually exist, except as a notion.
The phantom that is awareness is based on hypothesis, so it is
difficult to put it aside to understand that we are Determined.

GNFW, our subjective awareness state at any time must
therefore be strictly dictated by physics; it appears more
complex because the system self-interacts (and no two such
systems are quite identical in all respects), and we don't
have experiential access to all the causes or linkages, but
it's still all deterministic physics.
---------------------------

No, Life was Deterministically inevitable long before any physics,
and even before Science proper, because every one of us experiences
one and only one Life finally, one today only, it being yesterday's
tomorrow, which will be the only one that ever happens to us. We
call it causation, but one could as easily assert that the supposed
"Natural Laws" simply organize to make that exact Life occur.

We are not fully "self-aware". We are able to be somewhat aware of
the tenses of experience, past to the present as memory and then
a hypotheesis of many potential futures, and that is the rub, that
we conceive of many futures as similarly possible, when that is due
merely to our ignorance of the actual solitary outcome and what it
will be. This "God-view" is what leads us astray, just as it leads
us to erroneously believe that we know "God's Will" and the weird
viciousnesses that religion is capable of perpetrating on each other.

Well, how is that different from believing that there is
only one possible future?
--------------------------------

It isn't! There is, for each Being's Life.

Similarly, if there can be only one future (GNFW), then
either your Plan will come to pass or not; your exhortations
are an integral part of the inexorable sequence of events
that was started long ago and have no effect except to
extend the causal linkages where they will go. You will
continue them or not, and they will be received well or not,
period.
---------------

Absiolutely. But if they will have effect, they still must occur.

You are simply a puppet contributing to the total pull on
all the other puppets' strings, and the pull you apply is
predetermined by all the pulls ever applied to your strings.
------------------------------

There are no "strings", no "elsewho" controlling it that we know.
It simply happens because Existence is an Infinite Imagination
which must Live each and every Life Itself! It is neither us nor
do we exist in any sense except the experiences we seem to have.
Our lives are simply Stories, all of them quite weird in their own
way. We are what the Infinite does for lack of anything else to do.
The entire Infinity of All Possible Lives are Inevitable and
Inexorable in their Existence. They come into being more than
Spontaneously. It is the very nature of the Ultimate-Infinite
that all possible things must happen some-who/where/when.

Thus "good" and "evil" (including what I will not argue
is not "weird viciousness") are simply integral parts of the
total causal chain, both equally essential in propagating
it. Our perception of them as separate or opposites was
completely determined from the get-go.
---------------------------------

Doesn't change it, it's still evil as we see it.
You can't magically pull nihilism, infinite irrelevance out of
Determinism.

To conceive of many futures is to pretend we can choose them, when
we cannot. All they are is possible outcomes we pretend to model
on an equal footing to "plan" our lives, when that is a pretense,
because by the time we are aware of them, our mind is made up anyway.

I just said approximately that.
-----------------------

Then I guess I did too, first.

They are merely the manner in which we justify our mindset, no more.

GNFW, the _only_ way in which such justification can
occur, because how we do that is also predetermined.
---------------------------------------

Yes, the need to justify is also Determioned, as is everything.
But when everything is Determined, it doesn't devalue our desire
to oppose Evil, to promote Good, it merely says what we always
knew, that there is only one Outcome for this Life. It may not
be clear, it may leave mostly loose ends, but it is The Good
Inevitable Struggle.

The Knowledge of Determinism DOES do away with is blame and guilt
for supposed "sin". And that's WELL worth it. Revenge is still
planned, hate is still operant, but what you do is what you must,
and if someone wants to stop you then they have to grasp that.
They can kill you, or enslave or imprison you, but they don't
get to pretend that you just did it to be a smart ass and you
"really" could have done otherwise. This changes the social-legal
approach to just about everything, it becomes strictly pragmatic,
it does not presume others have control of their lives, nor are
the lucky assumed to deserve their good luck. It promotes the
social justice of economic equality, of the Public's duty to
bring people to the same level of entitlement before it.

Prison becomes a place to keep people we're worried about letting
run around loose, but we don't indulge in the folly of "punishment"
because we realize they became the way they are PRECISELY BY being
punished previously!

"What we are" makes the "choices", but they are not truly choices
but cause and effect, it is our deepest nature, but "what we are"
is NOT either our awareness alone or its preferences.

Yes, it is. There is no difference GNFW. Our awareness is
the inevitable product of our experience and how it's
processed. Our "preferences" are strictly determined by
quirks in the processing determined by our individual
physical makeup, which determines how our individual wiring
is arranged.
---------------------------

But there's nothing the person can do about what circumstances
have forced him to believe.

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.

To speak
of the "us" as controlling what we are is to pretend we can decide
what to believe. We cannot change the tiniest of our beliefs.

Well, so far you can't change that one of yours.
-----------------------

Be honest, you can't change yours, no one can, and when they change
you wouldn't even be able to stop them.

If we could, life itself would not be possible, and here's why!!:
If we could decide what we would fully and completely believe,
in ANY degree, we would be able to change where we believe we
were, and where we exist, and we could become totally and completely
deluded into a phony reality that we develop at random from an
unrelated infinity of possibles, and we would almost immediately
upon being granted this potential, become psychotic and become
totally out of touch with our common reality. We would step off
the "cliff" of awareness into something totally beyond a rule-based
universe. This would actually be the end of awareness, because no
awareness of a random changing condition would be useful, and thus
awareness would dissociate, it would not persist.

Taken to the extreme, this is commonly called "insanity";
the individual concerned does not agree with the consensus
view of reality. This is also the case when the majority of
a population agrees on an objectively false consensus of
reality except it then usually goes by a different name,
frinst "demon-possessed".
--------------------------------------

Insanity is a Deterministic condition, however, whereas what I'm
talking about is ultimate NON-Determinacy, truly random choice causing
awareness to fragment or depart this Life's reality, else it would
have to be Deterministic. And you don't realize it but any such "Free
Whim" would also have to be entirely non-deterministic, and thus
impossible, because actual randomness doesn't exist in the Universe
according to Chaos Theory. Only the Pseudo-Random is possible. That
means rules govern it.

This does not necessarily prevent the individual
concerned from being a fully functional, contributing member
of the society in which he is immersed as long as he does
not announce his divergent perceptions or if his divergence
is not sufficient for him to be perceived as dangerous.
-------------------

And as I said, it's not related to what I said.

Thing is, there's constant objective feedback from our
environment that can refute or support our beliefs about
reality. Ignoring or deliberately misinterpreting that
feedback to support a false belief is what leads to
non-functional insanity and/or being perceived as dangerous.
------------------------------------

Or to beliefs even of useful sorts. You can be wrong and have a
favorable outcome for a time.

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.

The Very Nature of Experience is NOT GETTING WHAT YOU WANT. This
is what makes what we CALL "Awareness" at all important, as it
arises from a need to deal with adversity, and without adversity
Awareness has no purpose and need not exist. If we got everything
we wanted then our "Awareness" would atrophy and deselect both
personally, as wewouldn't need or use it, and thus also it would
be deselected evolutionarily.

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.

If strict predeterminism is not in force,

The term in philosophy is Determinism. "Predeterminism" is the
"creation science" slanted buzzword used by phonies in the field
who come from the soft-headed religious pseudo-universities.

Congratulations; ten Pedant Points. You knew exactly what
I meant. If not, let me clarify. My usage was intended to
be; "determinism" means zero uncertainty in current events
and how they'll come out,
--------------------

It has nothing whatsoever to do with human "certainty" or uncertainty
except for Heisenberg's, which is mistranslated.

but "pre-determinism" includes
_all_ uncertainty-less causal chains that lead from however
far back you want to go, through a particular event, into
however far the future may extend.
-----------------------------

Xtian fundamentalist "pre-determinism" is fuzzy non-thinking.

R. Steve Walz · Dec 2, 2004

Richard Henry wrote:

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:7nejq0l0952hnl0keusnjc2jenntgec3un@4ax.com...

That makes no sense at all. What are those like me like? What have
I/we been yelling? Does your yelling make you amount to something? And
anyway, I wasn't talking to you, check the attributions.

If you converse with RSW long enough, he will piss you off. I think that is
his object.
-----------------

You err.

-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

R. Steve Walz · Dec 2, 2004

YD wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:59:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

I meant talking to everyone about it till it causes change.

-Steve

Still doesn't answer the original question nor the follow-up.
- YD.
-----------------

Yours. I merely dislike you, I feel no need to answer you.
Your questions are disingenuous postures, not questions.

-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

Charles Edmondson · Dec 2, 2004

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:32:50 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

[snip]

snip
or why the GDP is not a
true indicator of the "health of the economy" and then we
can talk.

I do think it matters, although interest rates and employment data
tell more.

Interest rates are a clue to the absolute lack of any need
for Bush to throw capital at the wealthy. They were so
flush with cash that they refused to borrow from the Fed
to invest. The problem wasn't a lack of capital, it was
a lack of demand. Bush should have put that money in the
hands of the consumer. Then industry would have someone
to sell its goods to, which would create jobs.

Trickle-down economics never worked. It was a con job
perpetrated by people who knew that most people don't know
anything about economics but react to plausible stories
about things they don't understand.

Ah, but economics is nothing but a con job! The truth is, not even

the economists really know how it works!

And yes, Bush is responsible for the continuing decline in
the value of the dollar, as it is falling along with the
world's confidence that America will remain solvent, which
is compounded by the rate at which Bush is running up our
debt with no means of repaying it.

Naaah! It's subtle, maybe too deep for you. Keep an eye out and
watch what happens to the European economy.

It becomes the world leader the way America always was when
the dollar was strong and other nations actually respected us.

"Filet...sheesh."

I predict a sudden collapse in Europe... that socialist shit can not
be sustained.

The EU is not socialist. It just believes that people
shouldn't be conned.

--Blair
"The victim is always the last to know."
Actually, in the EU, they are just trying a new variation of some of the

same old cons...

--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems

Mark Fergerson · Dec 3, 2004

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

How much money could be saved if citizens were allowed
to keep their
own money and bank it instead of having Uncle
Sugardaddy take it away
and pay 5000 parasites to give half of it back to you?

That doesn't happen.

That is exactly what happens. It's how massive
Beaureacracies perpetuate themselves.

Nonsense, nobody takes the money home, if they do it's
prison for them.

Except that the interlocking bureaucracies are the ones
doing the watchdogging and prosecuting. Why else would
"whistleblowing" in the government sector be so risky?

Actually, the parasites are the Wealthy.

You know very well that Government paperpushers do _no_
useful work in terms of increasing the GNP.

You mean "I refuse to acknowledge that beaureaucracies
are a parasite class

Since they are paid a wage like yours to do what the
People asked,
none of them are by definition any kind of "parasite",
all the
parasites are the wealthy!

You are again confusing how your fantasy world might work
with the way reality works.

Just don't allow them to come into existence. Mechanize
everything Governmental, and rotate the operators so nobody
starts thinking of it as their "turf".

So nobody knows what's going on so the profiteers can
steal it all.

If your State's economy is as straightforward as you
claim it ought to be, training Government system operators
should be as simple as teaching the use of an abacus. In
fact, anyone who knows the rudiments of programming,
accounting, and computer operation in general (which IMNSHO
ought to be everybody by graduation from middle school) will
be an "expert" with no need of system-specific training.

If a system is not totally transparent to anyone that
looks at it, it's because somebody wants to hide something.
That's what's wrong with the current system.

What actually happens to it is it flows toward the rich and
away from you. And banks are how they do it.

Sigh. Right after hanging all the lawyers, stone the
bankers? How about stuffing my own damn mattress? Or do you
now equate all saving with "hoarding"?

Saving money is hording. No savings or savable money should
exist, wage must chase goods, housing is owned free and clear
and retirement is state-paid.

No, it isn't "State-paid". It's added onto every price
paid by anyone and lumped together for later redistribution.
There is no, and never has been, any State. There are only
people acting (hopefully) in concert.

Sensible people "put stuff by", including money, for
immediate emergencies that no State can be equipped to
handle in the short term.

Won't you ever get over your "up against the wall"
mindset? What motivation have your defined classes of
"criminals" for improving things?

The Rich Criminals have PREVENTED most human advancement,
we'd
be on the Moon, half the nation would be reforested, we'd
live
on mostly professionally hunted game, everyone would own
their home by now and not rely on petroleum and we'd have

300 mph bullet

trains that were a quarter the price of planes by now.

Don't be disingenuous. Even the most extreme exclusivist
type of wealth-accumulator recognizes that raising the
general level of human advancement is to their benefit
because it allows them to float at a higher level on it than
their forebears could achieve. In the process, the
distinction between rich and poor has historically actually
narrowed rather than increased. That's largely why frinst
England's aristocracy has degenerated to a decoration on the
Commonwealth; they simply _cannot_ live better than their
subjects in any sense that counts.

Frinst, if what you say were true, surgery for everyone,
rich or poor, would still involve large doses of rum.

Typically, you aren't listening. How will you convince
the current rich that it's actually in their long-range
benefit (which it is) to abandon their illusory pursuit of
wealth?

Or are you hopelessly addicted to your delirious visions
of bloodbaths?

Mark L. Fergerson

Mark Fergerson · Dec 3, 2004

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

I don't see how any kind of "reasoned logical response"
is possible with someone who casually redefines "truth" and
"lie" for their convenience. It makes it very difficult to
map your statements to reality.

You mean YOUR "reality", and that's why!

There you go again. GNFW I have no options in
constructing "my reality", it was handed down to me whole.

There is an objective reality whether you acknowledge it
or not.

Of course there is, or else wecouldn't even be talking
like this.

No, that's a result of cognitive mapping in what appears
to be common. Actually, we have no conception of what's
going on in each other's mind, which should have been
obvious from our first converstaion some years ago.

No, we know full well. One has to know, or THINK they
know, to
resist an idea.

It's that THINKING WE KNOW part that I'm trying to eliminate.

But resistance to something one knows comes with one's
vested interest in what they were raised to believe.

Beliefs are exactly what I want to eliminate from the
conversation. That's why I keep asking you for _objective_
support for your claims.

You claim there's a body of "common human experience" on
which you base the structure of your principles, yet you
will not explicate that alleged body.

I don't need to, you know full well what I mean, you merely
wish to deny the notion that you'tre fully aware of.

I have no idea what you mean since you haven't said so
yet, and I refuse to guess.

I can't deny or accept anything until you present some
_objective_ "common human experiences" to examine.

YOU just don't LIKE me arguing from WHAT WE BOTH KNOW
because
it doesn't help YOU lie!

You still have not specified any alleged experiences we
have in common.

Nor do I need to, everybody knows what I mean, quit
pretending.

Yes you do, everybody may THINK they know, but there is
absolutely no way to compare until it's stated explicitly.

I need no such thing.

Then attempt to do so without them. Explicate precisely
what your and my experiences have in common.

Everything we share as humans, members of a species, and
that's
monstrous.

I do not live where you do, I don't have your
genetic/social/economic background, and I don't have your
worldview. That applies to all six billion of us.

Your assumptions are fantasies not based on reality.

A solitary statement that I'm wrong does not constitute
any actual
argument, nor even a convertsation, let alone a debate!

Then demonstrate exactly where your assumptions rest on
_objective_ (i. e. not subject to interpretation) reality
instead of simply asserting your beliefs to be true.

What I claim are objective you will dishonestly claim are
not.

Do not ascribe your favorite tactics to me. Grow some
balls and make some definitive statements.

The very use of the words subjective and objective was
designed
for such disingenuous purposes.

Now you deny objective reality?

I assert my beliefs so that you
can understand them, I don't even NEED to claim I'm
right, you'll
hate my ideas anyway if you have a political agenda to reject
truths that are inconvenient.

You have absolutely no idea what my political agenda is,
despite my telling you repeatedly. You prefer to lump me in
with extremist Capitalists because it feeds your fantasies.

You constantly claim that your beliefs are supported by
some common body of experiences, yet refuse to enumerate them.

That implies that you have not thought them through, or
have taken to heart some specific set somebody else came up
with. If the former, do some thinking. If the latter, just
say which and whose. If something else, like your own
original ideas, just quit dancing and spit them out.

Assertions are fine for a non-science like mathematics,
but anything intended to have real-world utility must
eventually be shown to correlate with isolatable
observables. Even mathematicians admit that their putput
must be tested against reality. Where are your correlations?

Mathmaticians can agree, math costs no one anything, but
political
differences cost thieves their booty, and priests their
position.

You digress again. Mathematical axioms are standalone,
and need not be correlated with reality for the structure
they support to be self-consistent. That some of the
structure correlate with reality is nice if it happens, but
mathematical theories of reality always need revision, often
down to their roots, when reality is seen not to conform to
the theory's predictions.

Where do your assertions correlate with objective
reality? Somewhere up in the upper structure? How about down
in the roots?

<snip Rather back-and-forthing for now>

You call the salvation of Freedom, Fairness, Equality,
and Democracy
"brutal inhuman socialism" and expect me to LIKE YOU?
That sentiment
ranks you as a killable criminal in my mind!!

Why should I care whether you like me or not? I simply
refuse to accept your unfounded assertion that brutality in
the form of State-sanctioned torture has anything to do with
justice.

You don't know it all any more than anyone else does,

My 55 years of experience tells me that's a defective
assertion.

Well, whoop-de-do; you have three years on me. But that
has nothing to do with my assertion; you do not know it all.
In fact, below you explain exactly why you _can't_ know it all.

Nor does age necessarily confer knowledge _or_ wisdom, as
you may have noticed.

Most people are so unbelievably stupid that I wouldn't
cross the
street with them.

Ah, you _have_ noticed, even though it's a complete
non-sequitur.

No, just lazy and unwilling to be repetitious.

Oh, you've already tortured a Capitalist to death?

No, but once you do once you still have to do it many
more times.

Then where's the "repetitious" part come in?

Why are you so willing to be repetitious in thought and
word if you're unwilling to be repetitious in deed?

Odd, you seem to think that repetition of your premises
will result in others taking them as true.

The more who hear, and the more ways I say it, yes, they
will.
It's always worked before!! Every cause that ever existed
proves it.
That *IS* what finally works.

Until you can demonstrate some objective basis for your
beliefs, your tactic is thus equivalent to the "Big Lie".

No, the problem is that many of your "meanings" and mine
are not the same. The reason I respond is to try to get our
mutual mappings to conform to something objectively
verifiable.

The problem is always definition.

Right. So explain your objective basis for your definitions.

You are so very pompously full of shit. You completely
fail to see your substitution of rational discussion with
the assumption of evil on everyone's part but yours.

Everyone? You're lying to assert that.

Overemphasizing perhaps. What "non evildoer" percentage
of the total population do you perceive out there?

It's a continuum, some are evil, some only venal, some
deluded,
some confused, and some damaged, and these can ALL be true of
different people to different degrees.

So, my revised overemphasis is correct?

To tak an extremely limited sample, how many
like-thinkers do you count in the sci. newsgroups hierarchy?

I wouldn't try. It's not measurable or important.

So, my revised overemphasis is correct?

(Rather) was right, just not well-documented. Everyone
knows GWB's
military record is a fucking scam. So many people in west
Texas and Alabama have been threatened, killed, and bribed
that you run into roadblocks and threats investigating it!

And what does that have to do with fraudulently
presenting falsified documents allegedly supporting the
contention?

Don't tell me "they did it, so it's fair".

Having a prejudice about something is _not_ the same as
"knowing" it, unless you use "know" to mean "accept without
evidence".

Like when the sun comes up in the east.

Exactly; that's "evidence", especially when you derive
from it celestial mechanics to back up a prediction that
it'll happen again. But you haven't presented any evidence
or mechanics to support your "knowing".

How long did he take to even mention that counterevidence
had been found? He waited until it was no longer deniable,
instead of reporting on it.

The administration had put out so much phony dummied-up
crap that
nobody questioned the opposite much, smoke --> fire.

Do not try to redirect the discussion. He lied.

The rest of your crap on this is just more partisan
dishonesty.

Partisan? You're the avowed Socialist, I'm an even-handed
Anarchist. Now which of us is more motivated to accept
Rather's lies?

you simply don't receive tacit appointment as
arbitrator of truth.

See, that's the thing; neither do you. That's why I keep
asking for objective evidence for your claims.

No "evidence" is needed to simply be on the side of the
good and
the right, I need not prove to you or anyone that theft
by the
rich is Evil and Wrong and harms other humans, and asking
for such
is ridiculous, like the police asking a mugger instead of
the victim
whether he actually hurt his victim. Such disingenuity is
best punished, not responded to.

I already responded to this sort of waffling:

I see. You have no evidence.

No one needs "evidence" for much of anything. Fully
99.9% of what
people do and believe they do based on the structural
argument
in favor of it, not "evidence". History has been based
on what
people did because they liked the idea, not because it
was "proved".

<N.B. It's high time to base future history on something
better than a consensus of bullshit>

So, you actually expect me to "like" your unsupported
claims whole-hog, and take your word for everything else?

Not till you do. That would be dishonest.
We wouldn't know whether to torture you or not.

Who's "we"? You've already admitted you're too "lazy" to
get your own hands bloody.

Not gonna happen. If you've been paying attention over
the years, you'd recognize that we have many points of
agreement and a very few bones over which to contend. You
keep redefining words to maintain your position while I keep
trying to get you to see what _I_ mean without having to
redefine anything.

But you see, the shit in your head you believe precisely
BECAUSE
you HAVE redefined a HUGE NUMBER of things from the
human-normal!

How do you know? You don't; you reflexively ascribe to me
all the qualities of your hated enemy. You know nothing
about me except that I refuse to slavishly agree with you,
and that I call Dan Rather a deliberate liar, which he is.

That latter particularly enrages you because his
untruthful efforts might have helped advance your agenda,
but as soon as it became obvious that all he had was
bullshit, you assume that anyone who dares point it out is
your enemy.

Why do you insist on depending on statements in obvious
disagreement with objective reality (lies) to support your
alleged Truth? Wouldn't discarding them in favor of
undeniable, objective _facts_ work better, and waste less of
your time?

You cited Godel; present your proof. I'll show you your
mistake(s).

<finally!>

I said: "You cannot lift yourself into the air, and you
cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any believed
control is easily proved to be illusory."

Yes, you did. I meant to challenge your connection of
these statements earlier; I'll do so now:

You cannot lift yourself into the air

is verifiably true; it is not an axiom since it's
supported by conservation of momentum, an objective feature
of reality.

and you cannot encompasse your own nature with your
awareness.

is an axiom not connected with the first statement since
there is no relevant conservable quantity, nor is it
objectively demonstrable as a general case, though it is
easily demonstrated for specific cases.

But that's just fat and gristle; let's get to the meat:

Any believed control is easily proved to be illusory.

Let's see, shall we?

Goedel proved that
any system of truth that relies on axioms, and all do,
will be
incomplete, that full understanding of it is impossible,
and your entire graap of what you do in your Life and why you do
it is such a system, therefore you are NOT in either
control or correctly informed as to why it happens.

That neatly undermines your claim that free will does not
exist by showing that your axiom-based explanation cannot be
complete.

Now you can jerk
around Goedel all day wheedling and conniving, many make that
their life's work, but it won't make you able to change the
tiniest thing you believe by an effort of some supposed
"will".

Except that I make no axiomatic assumptions while
pondering the concept of free will. Any temporary assumption
I may make is always tested against external objective
reality to establish its validity. I am not a mathematician,
nor does some illusory "truth" interest me.

And that gedanken experiment seals it anyway.

It shows the fundamental fallacy of your current beliefs
about free will.

Nonsense, Kerry has virtually nothing to do with me anyway,

Except that you desperately wanted him to win.

No, just that Bush would lose to ANY Democrat, I'd have been
lots happier with most of the Democrats I know. I'd've
liked it
even better if a Socialist or Communist had won.

Ah, yes; that the shrub lose. Anything to further that,
including false evidence.

And you should know damn well that it's way too early for
a Socialist or Communist to run for president, much less win.

Why do you
defend him so vociferously?

I don't.

Indeed you have. Do I need to show you where and how, by
quoting your exact words?

if you thought no subsequent benefits to your agenda would
follow?

Because just preventing yours is a benefit to everyone.

You carefully ignore my stated agenda and substitute that
of your hated enemy.

According to principles easy to state.

Except that you have to redefine truth, Truth, lying, and
Lying to do so.

*I* don't, you just mean YOU do.

Truth is based on objectivity.

What I don't like is your self-dishonesty.

Nonense statement. No one is dishonest to themselves.

You lie to yourself when you refuse to acknowledge
Rather's dishonesty. You lie to yourself when you assert
that telling any objective untruth is acceptable in
furthering an agenda. It merely reinforces the habit of
lying, which is what sowed the seeds of the destruction of
the Soviet Union.

Yeah, yeah, like your desire to start a State based on
telling falsehoods for "good causes".

No, just end THIS State.

Lying for any reason is still lying.

The fact that American democracy is partially subverted has
nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of it that is not.

I see. Where on the literal Earth do you imagine
Democracy exists unfettered?

I don't recall telling you I believed anywhere.

Reread your own words above. Where may I find "the rest
of it that is not"?

Nor is that important or necessary.

It's important in clarifying your thinking.

The fact that American issues are misrepresented by
Republicans has nothing to do with their actual Truth.

How about the similar relationship for Democrat
misrepresentations? Please don't reflexively assert that
they have none; previously you stated unequivocally that:

They don't for all important intents and purposes.

"Important intents and purposes" = "Ends justify the means"?

the two sides are NOT the same, one is quite a bit
better (less Evil) than the other!

If you'd simply acknowledge the inherent relativism in
this statement you wouldn't have to keep scrambling to
justify your apparent absolutism in so many other areas.

Your partisanism is irrelevant, Democrats are SO much better
than Republicans that it justifies killing all Republicans.

And killing all Democrats. Liars are liars.

Nobody even HAS to bother with your distortions.

What distortions? I quoted you exactly.

Kerry is as dangerous as any other politician for reasons
specific to his and his handlers' own unpublicized agendas.

You mean, of course, Equality, Fairness, and Democracy.

No, I mean the accumulation of wealth and power by the
likes of him and Teddy Kennedy, two of the worst plutocrats
ever to draw a breath.

By dangerous, you must disingenuously mean, to the Rich!

Like the fabulously wealthy leadership of the Democratic
Party?

How notional.

Riiight.

Then you could see that lying, for whatever "good
reason", is the insidious rust in any political structure.

Nonsense, you lie to beat an enemy. This is a War!

Ah, you're familiar with Sun Tzu.

Peacetime is a totally different matter.

Habits like that are impossible to break. Look what
happened when Stalin took over from Lenin.

Incorporating awareness of the plain dirty fact of human
frailty is not a bug of politicoeconomic systems, but a
feature _if_ it's done preventatively. Historically none has
even come close. Your intent to treat it with a sledgehammer
will not work any better than say the Inquisition did.

The Rich would have us believe that we are as vicious and
mean and
ugly as they are so we might as well bend over and let
them screw
us as the devil we don't know. They're just lying to
discourage
opposition.

"Vicious and mean and ugly"? Death by torture as
punishment for crimes is currently practiced where, again?

I keep talking to you about these things not to raise
your hackles, but in hopes that you may actually do better
than what's gone before. But that can't happen until you
adopt a more realistic assessment of human nature and the
fallibility of your "heroes".

And so you imagine that someone who gets off on political
torture-
execution has no grasp of human nature?? Hahahahahah! I
believe that
human society must be ruled with the iron fist of
absolute intolerance
of crime and that all crimes should be punishable by
death. If we're
not serious about suppressing crime, then WHY THE FUCK
BOTHER AT ALL??

You believe. Where's your objective basis for that belief?

Your sweeping quantization of labor=value is equally
destructive in the long run.

And of course you can't actually show how or why.

I have. You assume a zero-sum economy. No such can exist.

According to your own Newtonian metaphysics people
will want what they want when they want it, and nothing you
say will make the slightest whit of difference.

No, in EVERY kind of physics, each particle affects every
other
particle, it simply doesn't control itself.

And every effect can be traced back to a First Cause of
one sort or another in that scenario, hence all is complete
determinism. You've defined yourself as one in a long chain
of puppets with no puppetmaster.

You could save a lot of face by simply admitting that
your views evolve over time as details crop up that need to
be worked out and integrated. Sometimes that means
readjusting things all the way down to the foundation. Get
over it already.

When it destroys Fairness and Equality, and Democracy, and
makes me a criminal, I'll let ya know.

Sigh. Mr. Knowitall. See above, re: Godel.

<re: zero-sum economies>

Here is a widget manufactured in factory "A", using a
specific technology that requires three man-hours to make
one widget.

There is an otherwise identical widget from factory "B"
which uses better technology allowing one to be made with
only two man-hours.

How is each priced? They cannot be given the same price
arbitraily because somebody's getting screwed; either the
maker or the buyers.

One lot is priced higher than the other, then they are mixed
and their price averaged pro rata if they are the same
product.

Nope, workers get paid the same for their hour, that is NOT
unfairness, they might as well be making different and
uncomparable products. WHAT they make is irrelevant. That
they are EQUAL is the ONLY relevance. Their work is NOT UPON
the product, it is FOR the People's State.

But what people pay for them _cannot_ be equalized.
Price-juggling, with the excess going to the State, promotes
inflation/depression cycles.

Let me propose a better answer. Both are priced at the
higher wage-equivalent so that the excess for the "cheaper"
widget can go to upgrading factory "A". After both are
producing equally, the output of both can be priced at the
lower value.

Yes. But only if we can afford the uipgrade that year. it
depends on whether we can afford to upgrade the slower

factory or not this year.

In the meantime, somebody's getting screwed.

This is not profiteering, weaseling, or sidestepping
anything. It is taking reality into account by accepting
that it simply is not possible to quantize everything
immediately and permanently; some quantities will be in a
state of flux. Investment capital, no matter what name you
give it, must be raised somehow unless the State grants
itself unlimited credit (a very dangerous practice) and what
in the current economy might be called short-term
price-gouging is a viable solution that harms no-one.

There is no need to price one product higher because of that.
Better to raise ALL products a LITTLE bit.

Inflation/depression. Bad Juju.

Liar. Price is cost is labor hours. Period.
The only actual exchange between two humans that is
possible is
equal labor hours, hour for hour, all else is theft.

I'm waiting to see if you had another solution in mind.

Equality is not going to change any time soon.

Oh, you didn't. You're welcome.

Except that you define Truth, lies, and Evil by your
preassumed values which won't hold still.

They've been still for millions of years, it is your morality
that is in question.

My morality is based on objective observables that lead
to principles like altruism.

You still haven't stated yours.

If you ever get
around to re-examining them _objectively_ all those problems
will vanish.

Liar, disingenuous.

Truth. Demonstrate your objectivity.

I'd rather make all the thieves vanish.

Better to make theft impossible.

I make no claims other than obviousness. If the shoe
fits...

Obvious to you, through your preconceptive filters. You
have no idea who I am or what I do.

There is no "preconception", you pretend that I have some
notion
that PREDATES any thinking. All you're attempting is
insult, not
reason!

You said "obviousness". You preconceive that I'm a
Typical Republican Robber Baron because I dare argue with you.

If you are not egalitarian, then you're a criminal,
there is nothing
else you can be.

If I ain't uncritically fur ye, I'm agin ye. Where else
have I heard that lately?

Lessee, if you're robbing me, you're against me. Simple
enough!
How do I know I'm being robbed? I work, you work, but you
take
what I have. Simple.

Demonstrate that I've actually done that. Merely pointing
out flaws in your thinking is not theft.

You still haven't adressd my basic question. Suppose you
want to live elsewhere, and the local/whatever committee
thinks you're too valuable to allow to leave. What
happens?

You have to train your replacement. People have to live.

Suppose like most of us, you're better at doing your job
than teaching it? Are you billed for a professional
teacher's time to train your replacement?

If you can't do it someone else has to. Nawh, shit, you
better
fucking learn to teach it. If you can't teach it, you weren't
doing it.

Another example of your failure to recognize human
foibles. Do you not know people who work better than they teach?

Does your Ideal Sociialism allow for volunteerism, or does
it "volunteer" your services to The State for you?

If you volunteer to study to be a doctor, or volunteer
as an
emergency worker, then you are subject to the State,
without
which that work for you could not exist and care of
everyone
could not be offered. The State sometimes has to draft
people.

Just like every other State. You'd better have a much
better system of aptitude testing than ever existed before
in place beforehand.

If they pass the tests they keep the job, otherwise,
they're fired.

Why waste time with that? Just place according to
aptitude from the get-go.

If you work at a hospital to this day and a national,
state,
or local medical emergency is declared, I guarantee you
will
go to work and remain there or they will come and get
you with
police and give you the choice, work or jail. And it won't
matter if you try to quit, what your family plans were, or
whether it's your vacation or your day off. That's the
LAW NOW!
If you don't know about this ask a cop! He has to as well!

Yes, I know that. It's also explicitly explained to
pre-med students.

You would have this apply to _all_ classes of labor?

All critical classes.

Which classes of State-regulated jobs are not critical?

Yet again, I must be Evil since I do not slavishly agree
with you.

Agreeing with me particularly is unimportant.
Ceding to people what they deserve by rights is their
business,
and they will finally extract it from you.

Yet again, you assume I'm withholding something from
somebody.

Lessee, if you're robbing me, you're against me. Simple
enough!
How do I know I'm being robbed? I work, you work, but you
take
what I have. Simple.

Demonstrate that I've actually done that. Merely pointing
out flaws in your thinking is not theft.

Elsewhere you justify your "hoarding" by claiming
"stewardship" of the excess you admit you keep beyond your
needs. This is simple hypocrisy. Either admit it, or admit
that living in the current economy _forces_ you to
participate in "Evil" practices.

Disingenuous. Rightists like you want people like me to
divest,
SUPPOSEDLY to prove we're serious, actually it's merely
to benefit your partisan agenda. You're the enemy.

Steve, compared to you _everyone_ is a Rightist.

How can you living your principles help but benefit
everyone by example? I live mine rather than practice hypocrisy.

Whether I exist or am a response engine written by a
committee is

unimportant to the content I am promoting. California
can do fine,
as can most areas. Trade with other regions is a
luxury, not an
absolute need.

Except for fresh water, which California is way too short
of internally to support anything like its current
population or the high technology its economy depends on.

Nonsense. We simply couldn't export produce.

And couldn't feed much of the population involved in what
little medium- and high-tech that hasn't been outsourced to
"needy" countries.

Not to mention a shitload of manufacuring subsectors it

None of this topic is relevant to anything important.

Like, showing you objective evidence that you're mistaken?

BTW, have you reconsidered your claims about the

Oh, a reminder; the bit you "accidentally" snipped out
was your misconception of the source of irrigation water for
the Imperial Valley.

The "Colorado" river, which STARTS in California.
Irrelevant anyway.

http://www.kaibab.org/misc/gc_coriv.htm

Do you know which way the water in it flows?

Which reminds me; what will you do for electricity? You
_do_ realize that across-national-border tariffs for power
transmission are somewhat different from interstate case?
The nearest Nuke plant to you is, I think, Palo Verde here
in AZ.

No, guess again, Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, Avila
Beach, and
San Clemente. And 2% of our power comes from wind farms.

Yet you're perenially short of electricity, and overuse
of air conditioning is not the culprit.

Actually most of it is! People keep trying to live above
ground
in the central valley and desert.

Where's the greatest use of A.C. in California? Would you
like some pointers?

You could starve and turn all your lights on.

If we kept our water, you'd have to buy more food from us
than you have to now.

You don't seem to grasp that desalinization with our
solar flux
is easy to implement in the dry season.

Right, that's why it's being done right now. Oh, wait...

Then from where comes the added capital to pay for
improvements? NOWHERE!

Costs are passed to consumers, even foreseeable future
costs.

What about unforeseen costs?

Emergency labor authorizations and priorities, same as
any society.

Right. Like there's time in real emergencies.

Remember our discussion of
the dangers of JIT delivery and the need to "put things by"
for emergencies? The need to upgrade factories can hardly be
foreseen when labor-saving technologies are constantly being
invented, and nobody, not even you I hope, will seriously
consider suppressing such things in the name of
"equalization".

All it has to be is equal, not "suppressed". Dummy.

"Equal", like "We can't scrape up the funds to modernize
right now, so suffer quietly or be tortured for treason".

But that's not profit, that is cost. And new facilities are
costed by increase to current prices for everything. If it
were profit it would go to the rich for NO WORK. It
doesn't.

I didn't use the word "profit" in my last sentence, I
said "capital to pay for improvements". Profit is where that
capital comes from in our current economy. As for public
utilities, they have to raise capital by increasing
taxation, or raising the price at which they sell the
bonds they are financed with. If fewer people buy the bonds,

no capital is available.

Capital is phony, it is the use of phony dollars printed
by price-
gouge profiteer inflation to pretend to control the
promise of extra
labor to be allocated for new and not yet productive
endeavors.

No. It's the foundation of actual wealth in any economy;
without it, you can't expand. If you can't expand at need,
you die.

It isn't at all needed or important, public democracy
simply studies
labor needs and availability and allocates labor as
needed with assent
of the People.

And if they starve a little in the lag time during the
studies, well, so what, as long as they're quiet and you're
not one of them?

Mark L. Fergerson

R. Steve Walz · Dec 3, 2004

Mark Fergerson wrote:

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.
-------------------------

Only if you're unimaginative and jump to reckless and mistaken
conclusions. What the ACTUAL evidence of our senses points to,
if you are a "Fair Witness" to it, as in Heinlein's "Stranger
in a Strange Land", is a Multipsism in which we actually are
each different Life-Universes, but instead ours touch one
another, and in which we are NOT in Control, as the Solipsist
WOULD be if THAT were true.

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...
------------------------------

Only if I were reckless and unimaginative.

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.
----------------------------

Posture and deceive.

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.
-------------------------------

This is hard to state in English, English assumes and is structured
to talk about a "real-physical" as the Actual, and it isn't. And
this ALSO doesn't mean the world is "imaginary", as English means it,
as it also is not that. The perceptions of our body and mind are
not actually separable into body and mind, as if one provided "raw
input" and the other "interpreted it", they are heads of a coin,
part and parcel of one another. The eye is itself a percept, and
non-existent as English might mean it in being so, because all it
can be shown to be is an idea, nothing more. And yet those "Ideas
of What We Perceive Right Now And In the Past" comprise our "Memories
up to the instant we CALL The Present", but this Idea/Memory is,
in fact, the only Life/Universe we know or have EVER known, yet we
cannot fundamentally show it to be other than our personal Memory!!!

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.
------------------------

Precisely. I note that even you placed the term "believe" in
"watch-out" parenthesis to prevent it being taken simplistically.
But we have no "optical cortexes", oranges, apples, and brains
never have an "inside", as only the outside of things exist, so
that when you alter your head with tools to try to reveal what
is within it, you merely alter its outside appearance, shape,
and texture. It changes drastically according to a set of rules
we have come to call "inside things". But we can never actually
see other than the outside of things, and enclosed space folded
back upon our vision center at "OurSelf".

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.
---------------------------------

Completely unimaginative.

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.
---------------------------------

We do too!!!

Any set of percepts can define a "limb" to someone discovering for
the first time that they have one. If we woke up with telekinesis
and after a time discovered that after experimenting with it that
we had two different telekineses, left and right, and that we could
only pick up and manipulate things with them at a specific distance,
and within a specific range, and easily some ways and not at all
other ways, and that we had a sense of telekinetic touch, and even
proximity, and etc., then we would fabricate a vision of where they
were in our mind's eye and it would eb a sense in the mind, just as
vision or haptic position of our limbs are. You see, we already woke
up with such a thing when we were a very young infant.

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.
-------------------------------------

I believe that trees I can't see or hear don't exist for me.
I believe trees that you can't see or hear don't exist for you,
if you're real.

Belief in things you can't see is silly.
It's a misuse of the ability to believe.

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.
---------------------------------

That's a theory based on belief in a "real-physical", but with
alterations based on Fairly Witnessing what you experience, the
supposed "Objective" must also be altered in the form you conclude
applies for the differences between people's notions. That which
you have permitted to cloud your thinking *IS* a preconception.

So-called "Being Objective", which I DO indeed hold has value as
a concept, depends on how well you see, not merely on whether
you look!! Looking shows you what you were told you see, but
Seeing shows you what you were told, and more, WHY you were told
that. And many of those "why's" were agenda-driven fuzzy-minded
superstitions and even horrors.

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.
-------------------------------------------------

Your basing of such an extraordinary claim on something so poorly
evidenced places the burden of proof on you.

That you cannot SHOW that it exists without infinite data is one
objection.

AND that those in the Chaos community who have tried came to the
conclusion that even the idea of "random" itself is altogether a
mistaken notion is another.

This has nothing to do with microtubules,

Oh thank god.

Er, which non-existent one?
--------------------------------

All of them.

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_.
---------------------------

Only the Past exists as reality, prior to that it is merely
imagination, not real.

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?
----------------------------------

There is no "skull". There are percepts on the perceptual field.

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.
----------------------

You're obviously tiring, you're missing meanings.

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.
----------------------------------

Irrelevant, the Observed Rate is the Only 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.
-------------------------------------

Except in its context. Outside it, no.
Causality is made up entirely of how the order of events in
the Mind are ordered.

Nothing exists except as memories.

Without causality there can be nothing _to_ remember.
-----------------------------------------

That is simply saying that Memory is contexted by the Order
of Events in it. Obviously, that ordering is what makes us
different people!!

"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".
---------------------------------

Psychopathology is not caused by "intent".
And psychopaths can be deterred, it simply must be done differently.

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

Those are curables.
---------------------------------

Not hardly. But they are controlable by familiar methods.

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).
--------------------------------------

Everyone is, the potential gradients simply differ.
Some even appear "uphill". Doesn't mean they are not
equally stupid and unconscious.

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".
------------------

And lies about!
The evididence is in. Watch TV.

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.
--------------------------------------------

No, the Solipsist believes they are in control.
That wouldn't be me.
I assert that the Self itself, is an illusion.

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".
----------------------------------

You woke up here one day not knowing how you came here.
The Story of Your Life begins.

Reality produces All Possible Lives and lives them all,

MWI of psychology?
-------------------------

And physics/QM.

All must be lived to complete Infinitude.

How do you know that?
-----------------------------

God to be God must be God.
If God is not Infinite, then that "god" is NOT God.

God as I use it here, is simply what causes Everything.
And I mean Everything!

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?
---------------------

All things recurse, how did you think they got home after work?
Conservation of Matter/Energy, Conservation of Consciousness, etc.

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?
---------------------------------------

Ain't any, it's all Us!! The world springs from your eyes!

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.
-------------------------------

Just means the puppets are lots better than anything using strings.

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.
-----------------------------------

As you pointed out, that State machine doesn't actually "lie",
it knows better.

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.
---------------------------------

Motive is explanatory, which is a sideline to the plot.

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!

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.
-----------------------------------

Okay, maybe you're getting it, with a little refinement.

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.
---------------------------------------

Lying is finding yourself saying what you know is untrue,
you being caused to do it Deterministically is not
important.

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.
------------------------------------------

You have defined for yourself a label for a view you can't
handle, and said to yourself that you should be excused from
trying if someone holds that view. All that is is cowardice.

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.
----------------------------------

Sure, if there is a mismatch between truth and what one intends,
then what was said was a lie. We can HAVE intents without being
able to alter them!!!

Since we ARE ACTUALLY Determined, there is nothing that it takes
from us or ever has, we still have lying and penalties for lying.

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.
-----------------------------------

Nonsense, Determinism doesn't rob anyone of their intent.
It merely insists that they cannot change their intent.
If they intend that someone be misled, then they have intent,
even if them doing that is inevitable. All intent is is
"ill will", not "free will".

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

You confused yourself with all your not very bright "encryption"
nonsense. To hide something an entity simply need hold their
motives and actions secret. Even a stupid cruise missle does
that, and if you put a suicide bomber on board to fly it instead
of the computer, nothing crucial to my argument changes.

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.
------------------------------------

For each, yes, which is why we do many repetitions that are actually
different.

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.
------------

-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

EAGLE Netlist conversion

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Blair P. Houghton

Guest

Blair P. Houghton

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Charles Edmondson

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor