When engaging someone like Cosmin and trying to understand where he's coming from, I'd rather ask questions based on common understanding / null-hypothesis first, rather than muddy the water with my own loosely held philosophy. I'm probing to see if his ideas are consistent... I don't have an agenda beyond that. Perhaps if I got the sense that his ideas were worth exploring further I'd engage more of my own ideas.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:14 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2019, at 01:15, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without > causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means > to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it > otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change. > > 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing > consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. > What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity? I'd sure like to > flap my arms and fly. Why can't I? > > 3) How do you account for death in your worldview? If there are no such > things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint? > Why do people die? > > > With mechanism, there is no electrons in the ontology, but the existence > of the electron is given by the lawfulness of the number’s dream. I think > you confuse “human consciousness” with the universal machine consciousness; > It is like, as I often say: > > Numbers ===> numbers dreams ===> Matter ===> human consciousness. > > The number (with the laws of addition and multiplication) should explain > entirely the existence of dreams and consciousness, and the theory of > consciousness explains entirely the phenomenology of matter, and indeed we > rediscover the quantum mechanics principle from this arithmetical > phenomenology. > > Now it is easier to explain the quantum principle than any forces, be QED > or gravity. That just means there is a lot of work to do on the material > modes of self-references, which explain both the quanta and the qualia, but > not yet the fermions and the bosons, or any hamiltonian or lagrangian. > > And people do not die, except in the eyes of their local neighbours. Death > is a 3p relative thing, not an 1p reality. > > Many statement by Cosmic are theorem in the mechanist theory. It is sad > that Comin is not aware that self)reference is where mathematical logic and > theoretical computer science excels the most. > > Bruno > > > -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
