Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

Oh, why not both, especially when that defender of freedom, Zuck pushes his Libra :-) ? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Jun 18, 2019 5:52 am Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity On 13 Jun 2019, at 19:19, spudboy100 via Everything List

Re: The Science of Consciousness, Interlaken 2019

Congratulations! If I had done more, and had any opportunity of being able to go there, I would have submitted something on "Experience Processing". - https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/ @philipthrift On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 2:44:36 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan

The Science of Consciousness, Interlaken 2019

Next week I will be at The Science of Consciousness in Interlaken, where I will present the ideas from my paper "The Self-Referential Aspect of Consciousness": https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan If anyone will be around too, I will enjoy debating issues about consciousness.

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 1:00:22 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Jun 2019, at 14:37, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > Self-reference is not the same as recursion. I invite you to read my paper > "The Self-Referential Aspect of

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On 6/18/2019 3:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An overlooked simple possibility is that separating the notions of "consciousness" and "reality" is nonsensical. There is no evidence of any "reality" outside of conscious experience, nor can there be. Weren't you ever unconscious and awoke to

Re: A purely relational ontology?

 Good.  I like it. On 6/17/2019 7:15 PM, Pierz wrote: I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about  a conception of reality which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in reality. It seems to me that with regards to materialism, we find it very difficult to escape the

Re: A purely relational ontology?

> On 18 Jun 2019, at 14:37, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Self-reference is not the same as recursion. I invite you to read my paper > "The Self-Referential Aspect of Consciousness", or for the full picture my > book "I Am": https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan As

Re: A purely relational ontology?

> On 18 Jun 2019, at 12:56, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Pierz, > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, at 04:15, Pierz wrote: >> >> I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of reality >> which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in reality. It seems to >> me that with

Re: A purely relational ontology?

> On 18 Jun 2019, at 04:15, Pierz wrote: > > > I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of reality > which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in reality. Hmm… Of course we can just enjoy life. Now, some people enjoy searching the fundamental reality and

Re: A purely relational ontology?

Hi Pierz, Your writings remind me very much of the work of Gilles Deleuze, a philosopher who similarly shifted ontology from *identity* to *relation, *and explored many interesting consequences of making that shift. My exposure to him came from the excellent Philosophize This podcast, which

Re: Epistemological anarchism

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:18 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > > Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend holds that there are > no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of > science or the growth of knowledge. > No exceptions? Doesn't he make an exception for

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:51 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Me? I'm the one that needs to explains what "physical reality" >> means??!! I don't know what it means Bruno, it's your term not mine, >> that's why I wanted you to answer the above question so I could get some >> idea what you mean by it.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 6:19:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jun 2019, at 20:02, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > But why shouldn't *physics from arithmetic (universal numbers) *be > questioned as other interpretations are? What is an experiment that > supports this? > > >

Re: A purely relational ontology?

Self-reference is not the same as recursion. I invite you to read my paper "The Self-Referential Aspect of Consciousness", or for the full picture my book "I Am": https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan On Tuesday, 18 June 2019 13:58:49 UTC+3, telmo wrote: > > self-referentiality /

Re: Epistemological anarchism

> On 18 Jun 2019, at 08:00, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > The two words together don't make much sense, but the key point does: > > Science started as a liberating movement, but over time it has become > increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore has become increasingly an > ideology. > >

Re: Epistemological anarchism

> On 18 Jun 2019, at 05:53, Pierz wrote: > > Yes, though it was a fairly strong claim based on the cited evidence, which > was his demonstration that all the principles of the so-called scientific > method have been violated at various times in the course of important > scientific

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

> On 17 Jun 2019, at 20:02, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:01:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 16 Jun 2019, at 16:58, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 9:45:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 15 Jun 2019, at

Re: determinism and randomness in QM

> On 18 Jun 2019, at 02:14, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > The stochastic aspects of QM emerge in measurement, where the modulus square > of amplitudes are probabilities and there are these random outcomes. The > measurement of a quantum state is not a quantum process, but has stochastic >

Re: A purely relational ontology?

Hi Pierz, On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, at 04:15, Pierz wrote: > > I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of reality > which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in reality. It seems to me > that with regards to materialism, we find it very difficult to escape the >

Re: A purely relational ontology?

"I *experience* [seeing] red" or "I *am experiencing* red" I can get. @philipthrift On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 5:43:23 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > Actually, the correct ontological form is "I am red." (excluding the > entire emergent structure of the final experience of red) > > On

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

> On 17 Jun 2019, at 22:59, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:33 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> I could understand what you mean by "physical reality" if you could just > >> answer the following question. If there was a physical reality how would >

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:55:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jun 2019, at 20:12, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > Feyerabend wrote of scientific fundamentalism, being indoctrinated into a > particular theory as being TRUTH. > > > People seriously claiming truth are con artist

Re: A purely relational ontology?

Actually, the correct ontological form is "I am red." (excluding the entire emergent structure of the final experience of red) On Tuesday, 18 June 2019 13:35:41 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > See I red. (yoda for "I see red") > > @philipthrift > -- You received this message because you

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:12:33 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > Red is red. > See I red. (yoda for "I see red") @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 20:12, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:27:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Jun 2019, at 05:09, spudboy100 via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> iI like the Pastafatians. However I am not against religion, just the >> mentality

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 19:19, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > Yes Bruno, back in the day, one of my college profs termed ideologies, to be > a faith movement. I would say that ideologues are blind faith, or dogma. Ideas are better, but faith is personal, and we need it to go out

Re: A purely relational ontology?

Red is red. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: Epistemological anarchism

The two words together don't make much sense, but the key point does: *Science started as a liberating movement, but over time it has become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore has become increasingly an ideology.* It seems this rigid dogmatism is especially more present though in