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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2019, at 01:15, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> 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 [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.
