Salmon on the Thorns update

[David Dalton]

Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
for the first time since November 7, to reflect the fact
that in my latest attempt Gaia (the conscious planet
Earth) is the local chair/moderator of my workings,
God could override this but there is no conflict between
Gaia and God, and God is leaving this local matter
mainly to Gaia. But God is still my top deity and
indeed is also Gaia’s top deity. I consider Gaia
to be a deity to me but others (especially atheists) may
prefer to use a different term, and if they choose to
address Gaia they do not have to consider it prayer if
they don’t consider Gaia to be a deity to them.

And while I am fairly confident that I have a match
to my definition of Gaia (the conscious planet Earth)
due to my blue rose vision pre-dawn on Sept. 6, 1991
and due to my perineum click (short period mula
bandha) divination, which web searches indicate
is probably Earth-linked, I am less confident that
I have a match to my definition of God (the ruler
of the region all/everything). Perhaps this lack
of confidence is somewhat on topic? :-)

I have crossposted this partly since alt.atheism is
being flooded with spam lately, and partly since
my newsreader Hogwasher is having strange
problems with alt.atheism perhaps due to the
newsgroup article database being corrupted somehow.
The problem (multiple copies of headers) has
persisted even when I deleted the group and
added it again. Hogwasher support has not
responded to a query yet. But anyway, if anyone
from alt.atheism is following up, perhaps leave
also talk.atheism in the Newsgroups line so
I will be sure to see your followup (though I know
that is no longer possible on google groups).

[David Dalton]

Post by David Dalton
Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
for the first time since November 7,

Ha, just after I posted that it seems that nfld.com has
gone down. I hope that will be fixed soon by an
automatic reboot but it could be that it won’t be
fixed until Compusult staff get to work in seven hours.
Also it may be related to Internet access problems
locally today/tonight, though I thought those were
restricted to Rogers. In any case, if you try accessing
it and it doesn’t work, try again probably after
8 a.m. EST (1300 UTC) March 10, 2021.

[David Dalton]

Post by David Dalton

Post by David Dalton
Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
for the first time since November 7,

Ha, just after I posted that it seems that nfld.com has
gone down. I hope that will be fixed soon by an
automatic reboot but it could be that it won’t be
fixed until Compusult staff get to work in seven hours.
Also it may be related to Internet access problems
locally today/tonight, though I thought those were
restricted to Rogers. In any case, if you try accessing
it and it doesn’t work, try again probably after
8 a.m. EST (1300 UTC) March 10, 2021.

It is back up, I guess it was fixed by an automatic
reboot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton <***@nfld.com>:

What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Post by David Dalton
Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
for the first time since November 7, to reflect the fact
that in my latest attempt Gaia (the conscious planet
Earth) is the local chair/moderator of my workings,
God could override this but there is no conflict between
Gaia and God, and God is leaving this local matter
mainly to Gaia. But God is still my top deity and
indeed is also Gaia’s top deity. I consider Gaia
to be a deity to me but others (especially atheists) may
prefer to use a different term, and if they choose to
address Gaia they do not have to consider it prayer if
they don’t consider Gaia to be a deity to them.
And while I am fairly confident that I have a match
to my definition of Gaia (the conscious planet Earth)
due to my blue rose vision pre-dawn on Sept. 6, 1991
and due to my perineum click (short period mula
bandha) divination, which web searches indicate
is probably Earth-linked, I am less confident that
I have a match to my definition of God (the ruler
of the region all/everything). Perhaps this lack
of confidence is somewhat on topic? :-)
I have crossposted this partly since alt.atheism is
being flooded with spam lately, and partly since
my newsreader Hogwasher is having strange
problems with alt.atheism perhaps due to the
newsgroup article database being corrupted somehow.
The problem (multiple copies of headers) has
persisted even when I deleted the group and
added it again. Hogwasher support has not
responded to a query yet. But anyway, if anyone
from alt.atheism is following up, perhaps leave
also talk.atheism in the Newsgroups line so
I will be sure to see your followup (though I know
that is no longer possible on google groups).

[David Dalton]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
my four components (global new age onset magickal
workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
that they are working, but probably as usual in the
last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
the paranormal.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
my four components (global new age onset magickal
workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
that they are working, but probably as usual in the
last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
the paranormal.

Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
"paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

Be sure to demonstrate either to the appropriate objective
observers when you succeed. *Then* come back and we can
discuss it.

Have a nice day.

[David Dalton]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
my four components (global new age onset magickal
workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
that they are working, but probably as usual in the
last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
the paranormal.

Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
"paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
my four components (global new age onset magickal
workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
that they are working, but probably as usual in the
last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
the paranormal.

Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
"paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
religion, both have been posted here).

Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.

And again, have a nice day.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
my four components (global new age onset magickal
workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
that they are working, but probably as usual in the
last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
the paranormal.

Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
"paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
religion, both have been posted here).
Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.
And again, have a nice day.

There was a growing body of work on how "magic" works.
IOW it exists. :)
Human perception if flawed in various ways and certain
procedures hack perception and traditional magicians
have learned to take advantage of the bugs.
One of the bugs involves interpretation of sensory inputs
lagging so far behind the events that the brain has to fill
in up to 1/2 a second of reality with pretend reality.
If you're at bat and think you see the pitcher throw the ball
and have time to swing the bat to meet it you have fallen for
that particular perceptual trap.

On top of that there is another growing body of work
in QP which I've made some very mintor contribution to
involving "probability amplification". Already some magical
lore seemed to parallel what was later "proven" to be the
case in quantum physics. I.e. some magic has the concept
of "contagion" -- if 2 objects were ever in contact they can
influence each other even when separated. In QP they call it
"entanglement".

Probability amplification involves manipulating a quantum
system in superposition (i.e. "closed box") so that when
the system is measured it is more likely to actualise
into a given state. A simple example in QC is the Grover
search algorithm. I found another algorithm that is
sub-optimal but amplifies probabilities of almost
arbitrary wave functions.

If anything is magic that must surely be pretty close.
Some physicists have called it the "Santa Clause" effect
and I have written some things under the name "Aladdin's Lamp".

I could say something about how scientific skepticism is
possibly on the way out now there are stronger AI's that
don't worry as much about non-monotone logics, but I have to
leave at least *something* for later.

[David Dalton]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
my four components (global new age onset magickal
workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
that they are working, but probably as usual in the
last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
the paranormal.

Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
"paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
religion, both have been posted here).
Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.
And again, have a nice day.

There was a growing body of work on how "magic" works.
IOW it exists. :)
Human perception if flawed in various ways and certain
procedures hack perception and traditional magicians
have learned to take advantage of the bugs.
One of the bugs involves interpretation of sensory inputs
lagging so far behind the events that the brain has to fill
in up to 1/2 a second of reality with pretend reality.
If you're at bat and think you see the pitcher throw the ball
and have time to swing the bat to meet it you have fallen for
that particular perceptual trap.
On top of that there is another growing body of work
in QP which I've made some very mintor contribution to
involving "probability amplification". Already some magical
lore seemed to parallel what was later "proven" to be the
case in quantum physics. I.e. some magic has the concept
of "contagion" -- if 2 objects were ever in contact they can
influence each other even when separated. In QP they call it
"entanglement".
Probability amplification involves manipulating a quantum
system in superposition (i.e. "closed box") so that when
the system is measured it is more likely to actualise
into a given state. A simple example in QC is the Grover
search algorithm. I found another algorithm that is
sub-optimal but amplifies probabilities of almost
arbitrary wave functions.
If anything is magic that must surely be pretty close.
Some physicists have called it the "Santa Clause" effect
and I have written some things under the name "Aladdin's Lamp".
I could say something about how scientific skepticism is
possibly on the way out now there are stronger AI's that
don't worry as much about non-monotone logics, but I have to
leave at least *something* for later.

Interesting, thanks.

DRD

[R Kym Horsell]

David Dalton <***@nfld.com> wrote:
...

Post by David Dalton
Interesting, thanks.
DRD

The world as (incompletely! :) described by quantum physics
is pretty magical. It's everyday that things pop in and out of
existence, walk through walls, appear at times and places where
they are supposedly "forbidden", a property of one thing is transferred to
another seemingly incompatible object and made to stick, or even
disembodied properties removed from an object and shuffled around
from place to place.

It doesnt matter this applies to a sub sub microscropic arena
because various processes amplify it and make it visible "all the time".

It's the mundane world we think we understood from classical
natural science, geometry and reasoning -- if a puppy goes behind a
screen and doesn't seem to leave from either side so we assume it's
still there -- that is the amazing one and needs explaining! :)

[Phase3]

Post by David Dalton

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared

Post by David Dalton

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
the group essentially died.

Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
my four components (global new age onset magickal
workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
that they are working, but probably as usual in the
last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
the paranormal.

Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
"paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
religion, both have been posted here).
Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.
And again, have a nice day.

There was a growing body of work on how "magic" works.
IOW it exists. :)
Human perception if flawed in various ways and certain
procedures hack perception and traditional magicians
have learned to take advantage of the bugs.
One of the bugs involves interpretation of sensory inputs
lagging so far behind the events that the brain has to fill
in up to 1/2 a second of reality with pretend reality.
If you're at bat and think you see the pitcher throw the ball
and have time to swing the bat to meet it you have fallen for
that particular perceptual trap.
On top of that there is another growing body of work
in QP which I've made some very mintor contribution to
involving "probability amplification". Already some magical
lore seemed to parallel what was later "proven" to be the
case in quantum physics. I.e. some magic has the concept
of "contagion" -- if 2 objects were ever in contact they can
influence each other even when separated. In QP they call it
"entanglement".
Probability amplification involves manipulating a quantum
system in superposition (i.e. "closed box") so that when
the system is measured it is more likely to actualise
into a given state. A simple example in QC is the Grover
search algorithm. I found another algorithm that is
sub-optimal but amplifies probabilities of almost
arbitrary wave functions.
If anything is magic that must surely be pretty close.
Some physicists have called it the "Santa Clause" effect
and I have written some things under the name "Aladdin's Lamp".
I could say something about how scientific skepticism is
possibly on the way out now there are stronger AI's that
don't worry as much about non-monotone logics, but I have to
leave at least *something* for later.

Interesting, thanks.

Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?

Interesting, thanks.

[R Kym Horsell]

...

Post by Phase3
Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
Interesting, thanks.

Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
higher civilization work out a town planning problem.

If it involves reasoning with rules whether there are observations
to play with or not, AI could provide tools that can keep track
of all the details are what is beleived to possibly be true
and give us a day-by-day update on what is most likely true,
rather than having to continue to pretense we know some things
are absolutely true and others are absolutely false and we
can tell the difference.

I'm thinking AI tools could generate a leap in thinking with
essentially a higher-order kind of bookkeeping that compilers
provided with their handling of register and other machine resource
allocations to free up programmers to actually solve the problems
at hand rather than spending hours of thinking time figuring
how to ask the machinery their question.

I would love to write more but there's a college ball game on the tivvy.

[Phase3]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:58:12 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell

Post by R Kym Horsell
...

Post by Phase3
Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
Interesting, thanks.

Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
higher civilization work out a town planning problem.

Who constructed the constructors ? If THEY could
"just come to be" then so can anything else.

Post by R Kym Horsell
If it involves reasoning with rules whether there are observations
to play with or not, AI could provide tools that can keep track
of all the details are what is beleived to possibly be true
and give us a day-by-day update on what is most likely true,
rather than having to continue to pretense we know some things
are absolutely true and others are absolutely false and we
can tell the difference.

"AI", as we know it now, is easily biased - even
unconsciously - by the data used to educate
the system and the way the system is designed
to derive its "truths".

In short, an electronic theist is, at best, no more
reliable than the wetware versions.

Of course since it's electronic it will be deemed by
many to be "better" somehow - the "white coat
authority" thing. "Hi, I'm not a doctor but I dress
like one in this commercial - and I know you'll
believe me when I say that Oxycontin is the
solution to all your ills ...."

Post by R Kym Horsell
I'm thinking AI tools could generate a leap in thinking with
essentially a higher-order kind of bookkeeping that compilers
provided with their handling of register and other machine resource
allocations to free up programmers to actually solve the problems
at hand rather than spending hours of thinking time figuring
how to ask the machinery their question.

Much MUCH later, "AI" may finally evolve far enough to
offer useful practical and philosphical perspectives.
As of now it has no "existence", no link or stake in the
real universe, no sort of consciousness. Biologicals are
born "connected" - we are of, we FEEL, reality.

Of course, such an "AI" is no longer "artificial" .....

Post by R Kym Horsell
I would love to write more but there's a college ball game on the tivvy.

Well, priorities :-)

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Phase3
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:58:12 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell

Post by R Kym Horsell
...

Post by Phase3
Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
Interesting, thanks.

Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
higher civilization work out a town planning problem.

Who constructed the constructors ? If THEY could
"just come to be" then so can anything else.

So you're saying a program (e.g. our universe)
can't be written because it involves an infinite regress? :)

Post by Phase3
...

[Phase3]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 04:10:36 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by Phase3
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:58:12 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell

Post by R Kym Horsell
...

Post by Phase3
Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
Interesting, thanks.

Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
higher civilization work out a town planning problem.

Who constructed the constructors ? If THEY could
"just come to be" then so can anything else.

So you're saying a program (e.g. our universe)
can't be written because it involves an infinite regress? :)

That actually may be the case - and don't forget
the Incompleteness theorum. There will always be
a flaw, a hole, something that cannot be processed
which will spread its influence to everything else.

And so far as "creators" or "programmers" go then
yes, infinite regress becomes a HUGE issue.

Or do you plan to say "Turtles all the way down" ?

So forget the Easy Way Out, really Deep Shit is
involved here.

Now a programmer-LESS universe, a massively
parallel machine made of superstrings, might have
a slightly better chance. There would still be the
uncomputable, but the problem of programmer of
the programmer of the programmer goes away.

[none) (albert]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Phase3 <***@3spiracy.net> wrote:
<SNIP>

Post by Phase3
That actually may be the case - and don't forget
the Incompleteness theorum. There will always be
a flaw, a hole, something that cannot be processed
which will spread its influence to everything else.

Goedel is not applicable to this universe, because
actual infinity is a fiction, not a physical reality.
The universe is vulnerable to the weak completeness theorem.
It says that the universe doesn't contain enough facilities
to predict its own future, which is almost obvious, even
before quantum mechanics.

Groetjes Albert