We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain what I
mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey. Probably I
am trying to argue something that is incommunicable, like you kindly
reminded me. On many levels I could just agree with you. But on a very
important level I disagree, but unfortunately the point I disagree with is
subtle. It seems to me you are confusing representation and actuality, but I
am not sure this is precisely it, either.
So I am not going to argue anymore, it seems pointless. I am just making a
few comments regardless. If you want to respond, I am happy, but I will
probably not get into a debate about what's right and wrong.
All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on consciousness
is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't mean it's
independent of it, or prior to it. And the fact that it derived from numbers
within the theory still doesn't mean that it is in actuality the reason for
it. But obviously I can't prove that it isn't. I am just stating a (strong)
intuition. I guess there is no point argueing over that.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> It's self-reliant, and is making
>> sense of itself. 
> But what is it? People never agree on any definition of consciousness. 
I have no clue what consciousness really is, or how to define it. But I feel
that it is still obvious (on some level), somehow. I guess we will eternally
learn about it, without ever figuring it out completely. Probably we will
infinitely continue opening ever more astonishing mysteries that are answers
and questions at the same time.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But there is
>> no need to do this, as consciousness is perfectly self-explanatory and
>> self-explaining.
> If that was true, we would not need to have this conversation. There  
> would not be journals on consciousness studies, etc. There would be no  
> question like "is and how would consciousness be related to the  
> brain?", or "can computer thinks?",  Etc. 
All of this things are consciousness explaining itself to itself!

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I got the feeling you are confusing the inner god and the outer god,  
> like you might confuse consciousness and cosmic consciousness. I know  
> that from the point of view of cosmic consciousness they are  
> equivalent. But from that point of view the physical universe does not  
> exist, and does not need to be explained. 
>From my perspective the physical universe is a manifestation of cosmic
consciousness, so it is very real, and needs an explanation (but not an
explanation apart from consciousness, but within it).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The question is why do you take as obvious that consciousness cannot  
> be explained, or explained at some degree n%. 
I can't answer this question in some logical sense. It is just obvious that
there can be no external explanation, as there is obviously no exterior to
consciousness. And it is equally obvious that all internal explanations are
incomplete, as explaining yourself is always a bit like a dog chasing its
tail (well, a lot more productive and interesting ;) ).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> So the needle falling in the forest not only does not make any noise,  
> but it makes also no vibrations in the air? I doubt it. 
It makes a noise, and it makes vibrations. We are just not very aware of it.
It is part of our sub-conscious.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Let us assume that physician are correct and that there has been a big  
> bang. What was the qualia when the first particles appeared? 
I don't think it can be attributed a particular qualia. The closer we get to
the big bang, the less the notions of attributing a particular qualia to
particular things make sense, because there was no differentiation of
consciousness there.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hmm... With comp, God knows if there is an infinity of twin primes.
> The inner God tends to know almost nothing of that kind. It knows just  
> a finite extendible part of it.
> Do *you* know if there is an infinity of twin primes? 
One moment I believe there is. One moment I believe there is not. If we
define knowledge as true belief, I knew it either at the first, or the
second moment. :P
Seriously, I believe that God doesn't need to be explicitly aware of every
single fact as a single fact. This would just make God go insane. It is
enough that he knows the answer sub-consciously. Whether he can recover this
fact, and so bring it to the center of his attention doesn't really matter.
God's attention is not logically forced to be on every single fact as a
seperate fact. Actually, this would be extremely tedious, even hellish. It
isn't necessary, either, as there is a unfying truth behind it all (at least
I bet on it).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The sense you do is a making of your brain. The absolute sense, of  
> 1+1=2, is what God's sense, as you told me. You continue to talk like  
> if you were God. With comp: it is a blasphem. May be you should search  
> a position in the Vatican. They allow some confusion between earth and  
> heaven.
I wouldn't say I am God, because "I" is mostly understood to mean "ego". In
fact, I think this "I" is just a temporary, quite flawed expression of God
(not at all a mistake, though). But I think the ever present I am is God.
I think there is no ultimate boundary between earth and heaven. Earth is
there to make it heaven (and heaven, if it exists as a spiritual realm[s],
is there to bring it down to earth). Individually, I think you are in heaven
on earth, if you realize who you are.
...I don't think the vatican would like me proclaiming that WE are all God,
though. :D

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> That is extreme relativism which leads to instrumentalism. Fundamental  
> science is driven by the search of knowledge. To say yes to the doctor  
> cannot be just a useful story. Either you die through it, or you  
> survive. That *can* make a difference. 
I guess I am to near to a transpersonal view to accept this. It doesn't
ultimately really matter whether I die or survive. It just matters for the
relative story. So saying yes is just a useful story as well.
I am not saying we shouldn't search scientific knowledge. But it is just a
small part of being human.
OK, story may be to strong of a word. I just mean that it isn't of uttermost
importance. It is of relative importance. It is of uttermost importance to
realize our own nature, to become aware of ourselves (but paradoxically
trying to force this leads one astray, too, so it may be unwise to believe

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> In the comp theory, the following are (meta) theorems:
> - God agrees with you,
> - The inner God agrees with you,
> But the little terrestrial "man" disagrees with you, and rightly so,  
> because if he agrees, he becomes "retarted", a bit like when smoking  
> salvia. 
*lol* This statement is really, really funny. God agrees, but little Bruno
prostests that God will make him retarded if he agrees! No offense... I am
not juding you, I just found the statement profoundly funny.
Actually, I see truth in what you say. The ego can't agree, because it is
just not of the realm of ego. But ultimately ego is just a temporary
phenomenon (dare I say "illusion"?), and so there is no need for the ego to
believe it in order for you to see it, and so no one will become retarded.
You don't have to fight becoming enlightened! Just enjoy it, I am sure Lady
Salvia will agree (as long as you promise to not abandon your
responsibilities) :D.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> But then I am not sure your  
> goal is really to make a (testable) theory. 
Your right, it definitely isn't. Maybe this makes this debate somehow
superflous ;).
View this message in context: 
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to