On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 4:08:29 PM UTC+2, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > I don't know what Bruno did to you,what's the point to always attacking > him like that and misunderstand on purpose what is written ? > > You can keep that for you. > > If you have something interesting to say, say it, if it's only for > insulting don't bother posting... those king of insulting emails are really > boring, not only yours, all of them. You're not greater or something, it > does not serve the debates, it is just useless and shaming. >
Serve the debates? What multiverse do you inhabit? In the past weeks this list has gone through a religious purge with Platonia and its specialists here not merely conceding that they've tampered with evidence, but that doing so in the name of their truth displays the only kind of "correct scientific attitude". This while continuing to claim that mind-body problem is the only critical problem to solve, while denouncing all forms of materialism, while writing on material keyboards in clock time and using an internet reliant on the existence of material servers plus electricity, through a culture of democratic freedoms afforded to us by physicalist mad men! And this every single day without fail, as if confusing their material screens with reality. Mind body solutions are provided by just about every institutional religion on the planet, all with their own books and "evidences". As somebody that regularly analyzes discourse of all kinds, I see no debate here but a monologue of ideologues that suffocates any alternative ontological approaches on a list designed to discuss "theories of everything". Yup, theories in plural. Therefore, au contraire Quentin the anxious, the fact that for some 2 decades, the list is barraged by discourse such as "what world, what clock you naive person?", as soon as any everyday interpretation and/or wording of events or phenomena is stated by Brent and others, quite gratuitously and insultingly by platonists. Whenever the platonists feel like it. In essence solidifying pure opinion as mathematical truth riding the high moral horse of truth of ignorance. When the non-platonists bemoan pronoun use or unclear grandmother assumption notions that forcibly arise in the initial discursive setup of UDA on the other hand, such unclear notions get a pass by platonists here. Double standard through cherrypicking. The discourse in question also appears to yours truly as ascetic in nature: denial of access to reality, so how can a metaphysics or anything including debates be meaningfully pursued? Nihilism overlaps with asceticism and denial of access to the real or that can be shared. So how could any agreement or disagreement for example be as meaningful as stating the "right theological attitude" in the first place? Then the discourse deploys "infinitely weak mechanism for the search" or similar without provision of an account of evidence and/or map. Don't take my word for it, but these discursive styles and principles have been refuted from many angles and/or have been unable to resolve basic philosophical problems and consistency constraints. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism Quote "the purpose of pursuing spiritual goals" as an operation of platonic mind commonly assumed here equates to fundamental inquiry as a sort of redemption from the illusion/dream of life. That's pretty Christian and all too human for bona fide computationalistas of this list, or is it not? Just shadows but salvation in rejecting materiality while materializing numbers, literalizing their properties strongly and laying a territorial claim to "Origins of physical laws", which I'll maintain is ambitious in proportion to the speculative existence of means to evidence besides being "territorial" in nature. Tampering with evidence is a thing in platonia, is it not? Science does better. Quote "Asceticism is seen in the ancient theologies as a journey towards spiritual transformation, where the simple is sufficient, the bliss is within, the frugal is plenty." This is the basic aesthetic decor of our discourse here: the simplest 2+2=4 decor that hides the monstrosities of duplicating machines and powerful computing ability we don't have to verify our observations in nature. I reject it because I'm not certain materialism is not a hopeless delusion. Besides being too strong a claim, materialism brought weapons and war for sure, but science can't coexist without it. With art, all these things are interdependent and materialism bootstraps our creativity towards joy. The shared kind under liberality and diversity measures. Hedonisms, of which say consumerism is a diluted form, don't commit wholesale to some extreme physicalist straw man you guys keep beating ad infinitum. This strengthens the case that the discourse in question is a set of rhetorical ideological devices rather than science. The utilitarian focus on hyper simple ontological performance, which is an overemphasis on the "what", the content; lacking the dimensionality of the "why", points to some ascetic resignation in discourse or psychology terms. What a discourse leads to concretely for outcomes in life is tending to outstrip with yours truly the concern for features, fancy body-mind purported solutions, quantum mechanics etc. The why, especially talking attitude, seems somehow a more appropriate point to converge on whenever metaphysics is called upon. *Quote "Nietzsche describes the morality of the ascetic priest as characterized by Christianity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity> as one where, finding oneself in pain or despair and desiring to perish from it, the will to live causes one to place oneself in a state of hibernation and denial of the material world in order to minimize that pain and thus preserve life, a technique which Nietzsche locates at the very origin of secular science as well as of religion. He associated the "ascetic ideal" with Christian decadence."* Given unconvincing evidence and unclear arguments concerning how, where, and why some forms and types of materialism are problematic also leaves me skeptical of the entire enterprise and its solvability. Yeah, you guys will say it's a theology where everything fits but simultaneously afford yourselves to push hard on the supposed truth of computability applying to reality, which is questionable in view of a notion of "evidence" we saw in previous weeks you guys have no problem proclaiming to tamper with. That's "theory" veering hard into opinion with pride and ideological ambition to boot. The internet, no surprise. You speak of empty insults, and my assessment of the discourse states uncalled for use of linguistic tricks, which is obviously required when all standards of evidence and peer criticism are abandoned in favor of the "right attitude to fundamental questions". I didn't participate in that flurry of ambitious posts, you guys did that to yourselves while continuing to try to maintain the semblance of some serious academic debate. A debate that is sabotaged by the kind of discourse that denies its own reliance on materialism. Similar to the right wing guys that seek influence in democratic institutions while they clearly declare themselves to be proud ideologues fundamentally opposed to democracy, probably with the "right kind of attitude". My contention is: the platonic side pretends to be innocent on the dynamics and complexity of the platform they employ to participate in discourse. That's hypocritical but worry not anxious Quentin. I have neither the time nor inclination to "debate" with ideologues. You guys win. Always and anyway and forever. You have infinite time to post, so do the maths. But if you're sensitive to your own discursive tricks applied to your reasoning for a change, which you clearly are when you feel a need to silence me in posts such as the above, I'll repeat with pleasure: "Grow a pair and respect yourselves. You guys are better than this. You don't want to advance debate outside your monologues and ideology which run counter to the spirit of the list." Because "Theories" is in fact plural. PGC > > Quentin > > Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 15:50, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 11:51:52 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On 2 Jul 2019, at 20:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 7/2/2019 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >> Which time? I can access only my subjective time, and I would say >>> that my period between birth and the age of ten has been considerable >>> longer that the once between 10 and 60. >>> > >>> > We should send you a clock and a calendar then. >>> >>> :) >>> >>> The whole point is that physics arise from the statistics on first >>> person experiences, which are required when we do physical experiment and >>> look at a needle. >>> Thanks for sending me a clock and a calendar, but we cannot use it to >>> solve the measure problem, or you are invoking the mind-brain identity link >>> which is the problematic thing, not in physics, but in physicalist >>> metaphysics. >>> >> >> No shadow of your smile as it would be consistent to not award you the >> supposed prize we keep hearing about! Those guys understood the situation >> apparently. Some prize awarded at some time t cannot be real. Lol >> >> You get no clock, so you get a clock. No prize means that you got a >> prize. Death means immortality. Losing means winning, so not having solved >> the measure problem means having solved it. Applause is appropriate but >> non-applause is preferable and it's what you got! >> >> So the absence of success on all fronts means: success platonic! >> Everybody with debts is now rich, which means that everybody is dumb, which >> means that they're smart. That's what age will do to you: you get old and >> your arguments + evidence get better and better hurtling towards certain >> immortality. The heavenly stuff. Mind body total reality. Total partial >> non-control. Tomorrow it will be rainy or snowy or foggy or sunny or >> everything or nothing. With the bar so high one begins to wonder why anyone >> could have the audacity to think they've failed or succeeded at anything >> without Bruno's generous support. 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50e53fc4-47f0-4632-a0bb-abfa393aea9b%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50e53fc4-47f0-4632-a0bb-abfa393aea9b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a00962e1-0bb1-4b88-8257-8add8cba5135%40googlegroups.com.
