It depends what kind of person you are. If you are a depressed person, curing you of cancer will not do any good. On the contrary, if you would have died you would havd gotten a chance at happiness in the next life.
On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 21:06:51 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 11:27:28 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > I just opened a topic a while back about the definition of the word > "useful" that you keep abusing. Let's remind you: > > Useful = whatever increases happiness. > Useless = whatever doesn't increase happiness. > > My philosophy, I guarantee you 100%, increases happiness, so is useful. > Getting cured of cancer might still let you depressed, so cancer cure is > useless. > > > *You can't be very conscious and make such a hugely stupid comment. Don't > ya think that being cured of cancer is immensely happier than succumbing to > it? AG* > > > On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 19:59:29 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 10:44:42 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 9:53:59 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > How do you expect you can properly fix a car if you don't know how it > function ? You just do guesswork, you give it a few kicks and maybe it > starts. This is how present-day science works given that it doesn't work > based on fundamentals, namely based on the working of consciousness. Sure, > you can keep doing research this way: kick it till it works. And you might > save a few lives. But if you were start from fundamentals, then you would > know exactly what you were doing and you will save 8 billion lives. Not > that it would matter at that point, given that at that level of development > we will manipulate consciousness to such a degree that we will not even > need bodies anymore. > > > *About 60 years ago I met a fellow with your philosophy, a Master of Yoga, > an adept at "Traditional Science", author of several books, who claimed > with great authority that the problem of cancer had been "solved". He never > got cancer but died of a heart failure around age 80 in 2008. AG* > > > *My point is that people with your philosophy often make huge claims, with > rarely anything practical forthcoming. For example, during the Covid > pandemic, a company named Moderna produced a vaccine in record time, using > knowledge of DNA, viruses, etc. They couldn't have done that without the > discovery of DNA, which no doubt required by the invention of the Electron > Microscope. Talk is cheap. We can do great things in the absence of your > vague philosophy. Can you actually DO something useful, or is it all talk? > AG * > > > On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 17:17:26 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 8:11:38 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > @Alan. You can do cancer research. But since that research is not based on > fundamental ideas about reality, it will be just guesswork: Just try 1000 > different drugs and cross fingers that one might work. Instead, if people > would actually understand consciousness, they would cure cancer in 1 week. > > > *I might believe that if you were able to contribute ANYTHING to ANY > problem discussed here. All I read are grandiose claims with nothing > practical forthcoming. AG* > > > On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 17:08:48 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 8:01:18 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > You can continue cancer research. But is just like playing World of > Warcraft in order to get the legendary gear. > > > *If you get cancer, which is not my wish, you can tell your doctor that > the pain and suffering is purely imaginary, not to mention the possible > early termination of your life. Now, do us all a favor and cease posting > like a fool. AG * > > > On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 16:48:23 UTC+2 John Clark wrote: > > *You didn't answer my question. Should cancer research be stopped, and if > not why not? * > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 9:35 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > You make the classical confusion between epistemology and ontology. Only > because you can watch a movie with Spider-Man (epistemology), it doesn't > follow that Spider-Man exists (ontology). > > On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 15:39:31 UTC+2 John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > *>>the question of list moderation would not be relevant at this time if > one very recent list member didn't think page after page of nothing but > "(:>)" characters was an intelligent rebuttal, and ALL scientific questions > of the form "what is the nature of X?" can be answered by simply saying "X > does not exist".* > > > > *> Of course, given that consciousness is all there is. Why would you > waste time talking about things that don't exist ?* > > > *So there's no point in doing cancer research because cancer does not > exist? Do I have that right? * > * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a26b79d-cfdf-4e35-8ef3-8ae98dd29b72n%40googlegroups.com.
