On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 3:22:18 PM UTC+2, telmo wrote: > > Hi Cosmin, > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 08:42, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > > 1) Oh, I'm clearly not making that mistake. When I talk about emergence, I > talk about ontological emergence, not the hand-waving epistemic kind that > people usually talk about. The emergence that I'm talking about is the > emergence of new qualia on top of previously existing qualia. This is what > my book is about. So it's the real deal. Alternatively, have a look at my > presentation from the Science & Nonduality conference where I talk about > The Emergent Structure of Consciousness, where I talk about ontological > emergence and I specifically mention to the audience that the epistemic > emergence is false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ > And what realizes the ontological emergence is self-reference through its > property of looking-back-at-itself, with looking-back becoming more than > itself, like in the cover of the book. > > > Ok, I saw your presentation. We agree on several things, but I don't quite > get your qualia emergence idea. The things you describe make sense, for > example the dissolution of meaning by repetition, but what makes you think > that this is anything more than an observation in the domain of the > cognitive sciences? Or, putting it another way, and observation / model on > how our cognitive processes work? > > > 2) Consciousness is not mysterious. And this is exactly what my book is > doing: demystifying consciousness. If you decide to read my book, you will > gain at the end of it a clarity of thinking through these issues that all > people should have such that they will stop making the confusions that > robots are alive. > > > I don't mean to discourage or attack you in anyway, >
Lol, getting the new kids in line with the program, Telmo? What, did Twitter get too boring for you? > but one in a while someone with a book to promote shows up in this mailing > list. No problem with me, I have promoted some of my work sometimes. My > problem is with "if you read my book...". There are many books to read, > please give the main ideas. Then I might read it. > > > 3) No, they are not extraordinarily claims. They are quite trivial. And > they start from the trivial realization that the brain does not exist. The > "brain" is just an idea in consciousness. > > > I have no problem with "the brain is just an idea in consciousess". I am > not sure if this type of claim can be verified, or if it falls into the > category of things we cannot assert, as Bruno would say. I do tend to think > privately in those terms. > Your certitude on public display always is impressive. > > So ok, the brain does not exist. It is just a bunch of qualia in > consciousness. But this is then true of every single thing! > Holy Moses. > Again, no problem with this, but also no reason to abandon science. > Yeah, in hands of the proper authorities such as ourselves, science is a powerful tool. Telmo, grow a pair. Nobody ever told you: you don't have to copy Bruno's. Grow your own. PGC -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
