What do you REALLY believe?

[the last yatto]

This popular chemistry demonstration is often called turning water into wine or water into blood. It's really a simple example of a pH indicator. Phenolphthalein is added to water, which is then poured into a second glass containing a base. If the pH of the resulting solution is right, you can make the water turn from clear to red to clear again, as long as you like.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/ht/waterwine.htm

ITS WINE its water ITS WINE 

[MMIX]

This popular chemistry demonstration is often called turning water into wine or water into blood. It's really a simple example of a pH indicator. Phenolphthalein is added to water, which is then poured into a second glass containing a base. If the pH of the resulting solution is right, you can make the water turn from clear to red to clear again, as long as you like.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/ht/waterwine.htm

ITS WINE its water ITS WINE 

aka ITS A CHEMICAL its a chemical ITS A CHEMICAL . . . hmmm kinda lost something in the translation there. when  i was a little girl my dad was an industrial chemist and he took me into the lab one day and one of the guys did this trick for me. i remember it vividly though it is over 50 yrs ago but i can honestly say i've never found it lulzy - do you think i am doing it wrong . . . ?

[the last yatto]

they probally explained what was going on, to outsiders. you are turning a clear liquid red and then back.

dont you wanna pretend to be jesus in public too?

[MMIX]

dont you wanna pretend to be jesus in public too?

nah . . . i never wanted to follow the crowd

[Rev. Stanley Baldwin]

arg. \/ complicated w/ different threads

we try to synthesize them : compress information

sierpinsky (sp.=?) triangle next target?

if the model of logic used b/t frames were not based
on the euclidian 2-space geometry?

would that make sense?

Fibonacci has served us well, still,
"not everything thing that can be counted..."

Counting meaning as a quality expresses our interest
in proving ourselves right?

How would we communicate this in NEWSPEAK?

To bait the argument:

What if Kant stood-up and said-
Wait, stop, God I beseech you listen to
  this pale remanence, before thee Wed:
   what is the unifying principle?

The Ring?

How do you picture that ring?

the pet belief system I'm trying on this year is the one pushed in the Art of Memetics, where we're basically just a point of consciousness suspended in these nested egregores. And we ourselves are not a singular person, but a nested multiplicity of ideas and identities.


So at a very fine level you have cells. If you zoom in to see just cells, they look like like individual entities.
-zoom out and you see tissue
--zoom out and you see a person
---zoom out and you see a group of people
----zoom out and you see a business, religion, nation...

there's intelligence at all levels. This is fractal logic. Your body has circulatory, nervous, and immune systems. Your country has them too. We're all parts of the same giant entity.

bolded some bits i think are important. thanks Cram for putting this idea into words. this has actually been my belief system for a long, long time. maybe from reading Gödel Escher Bach, but I think already before that even, the first time I came up with a good idea about how consciousness and "free will" work, or are made up of, I immediately saw the correspondence with larger scale structures such as corporations, nations and economy. I thought if intelligence emerges out of complex information-flow networks that have certain properties*, then it must be happening on all levels (but on widely varying timescales btw. some stuff happens so slowly that you can't really communicate with it in one lifetime. the earth ecosystem, or a forest comes to mind).

the good thing about this idea is, that I can argue it scientifically.

however, it is NOT a scientific theory. in some ways (but not really) it is a bit similar to Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. which was one of the textbook examples of pseudoscience in one of my philosophy classes. the problem with it being, that it is not falsifiable. this whole "fractal memetic network intelligence" idea, is also not falsifiable, so it's not a proper scientific theory.

but that's okay.

science works, no doubt about that. but being the strict formal system that it is, it logically follows that it either cannot produce all true theories, or that it must produce paradoxes (so far it has done both). hence, there must be true theories, that cannot be proven by science. simple as that. if you done a bit of philosophy of science, you should know that the scientific method does have its limitations, but that's okay, cause IMO it is still the most useful system we got.

just, don't confuse it with "the only way to Truth", cause that's nearly (but not quite) as bad as the mistake fundies make.


*unfortunately I only have a vague idea what kind of properties are required to distinguish a network with the potential for intelligence from one that doesnt. I do, however, have a sort of gut-feeling about it. I should probably lend it some more thought and work that out for myself.

You're both talking about emergence, and I love you.

[Rev. Stanley Baldwin]

happy 4th!

[the last yatto]

"not everything thing that can be counted..."
how about you change what you count

[Rev. Stanley Baldwin]

"not everything thing that can be counted..."
how about you change what you count

I like, this, on many levels 
(cannot argue w/ quantum physics

[Rev. Stanley Baldwin]

is it the thing that changes when we count,
or did we forget to count the way we change?

[Kai]

Reverend, I'm sorry but I don't think I understand anything you're talking about. 

[the last yatto]

arg. \/ complicated w/ different threads
threads run single file, carry over is only meh

we try to synthesize them : compress information
meme programming?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

arg. \/ complicated w/ different threads

we try to synthesize them : compress information

sierpinsky (sp.=?) triangle next target?

if the model of logic used b/t frames were not based
on the euclidian 2-space geometry?

would that make sense?

Fibonacci has served us well, still,
"not everything thing that can be counted..."

Counting meaning as a quality expresses our interest
in proving ourselves right?

How would we communicate this in NEWSPEAK?

To bait the argument:

What if Kant stood-up and said-
Wait, stop, God I beseech you listen to
  this pale remanence, before thee Wed:
   what is the unifying principle?

The Ring?

How do you picture that ring?

Oh, boy.  Word salad.   

[Rev. Stanley Baldwin]

un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)

[Roaring Biscuit!]

un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)

do you wanna say it or shall i?