On 26 Jan 2015, at 23:59, Kim Jones wrote:
On 27 Jan 2015, at 4:44 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 00:02, Kim Jones wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a
On 26 Jan 2015, at 00:02, Kim Jones wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a
universal person is natural in this context.
Here is the big sell, then. You have to somehow demonstrate to the
On 26 Jan 2015, at 01:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/25/2015 3:02 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
Here is the big sell, then. You have to somehow demonstrate to the
human race that we are a universal person. Best of British, old
son! The math alone maybe will convince another mathematician, but
without
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Evolution favours nothing.
That is incorrect. Evolution favors getting genes into the very next
generation
and Evolution favors absolutely positively NOTHING else.
By saying favours you are already attempting
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a universal
person is natural in this context.
Here is the big sell, then. You have
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:15 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
That is incorrect. Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better
in the *SHORT* run.
There is a point where the
On 27 Jan 2015, at 4:44 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 00:02, Kim Jones wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a universal
person is natural in this
On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a universal
person is natural in this context.
Here is the big sell, then. You have to somehow demonstrate to the human race
that we are a universal person.
On 1/25/2015 3:02 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
Here is the big sell, then. You have to somehow demonstrate to the human race that we
are a universal person. Best of British, old son! The math alone maybe will convince
another mathematician, but without your guiding values, they will fail to see the big
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 5:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Insofar as they are expressed in words it seems that logical
contradictions are beyond belief.
I don't think so. If it's pleasant to believe in X and it's also pleasant
to believe in Y I think it's possible for some people
On 24 Jan 2015, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact it is a benign move to bet that we are the same universal
person (S4Grz(PA) or S4Grz(M))(*) with diverging experiences, like
the W and M guy.
Is it? Does that apply to all sentient beings? Is
On 24 Jan 2015, at 15:54, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 3:58 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random
(i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions
On 1/24/2015 1:39 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
But the simulation could make you think or believe anything - anything at all. Do you
think there is any limit to the possible craziness of simulated thoughts and beliefs?
It somewhat depends on what you mean by thought and by belief. Insofar as they
On 25 Jan 2015, at 8:39 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 3:58 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a
On 1/24/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact it is a benign move to bet that we are the same universal person (S4Grz(PA) or
S4Grz(M))(*) with diverging experiences, like the W and M guy.
Is it? Does that apply to all sentient beings? Is it a benign bet that I'm the same
person as the
On 22 Jan 2015, at 10:27, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 6:07 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look,
the universe is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the
limitation
On 22 Jan 2015, at 13:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been
thinking about, along these lines (I believe).
On 23 Jan 2015, at 00:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it
entirely with evolutionary usefulness - does that change
On 22 Jan 2015, at 13:27, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rex Allen
rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true
beliefs about the mathematical
On 22 Jan 2015, at 22:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs
about the mathematical nature of the
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 24, 2015 9:54 am
Subject: Re: Manifesto Rex
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a mathematical
universe would
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
So yes, Evolution invented the brain that invented condoms, and if
Evolution had any foresight it would have certainly taken steps to ensure
that the brain never even thought of the idea of a condom;
We don't
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:44:43PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
So yes, Evolution invented the brain that invented condoms, and if
Evolution had any foresight it would have certainly taken steps to ensure
that
On 24 Jan 2015, at 8:15 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
That is incorrect. Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better in
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
That is incorrect. Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better in
the *SHORT* run. That's why Evolution is such a dreadful designer and was
On 1/23/2015 2:21 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 09:00:13AM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
On 24 Jan 2015, at 8:15 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
That is incorrect. Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better
On 1/23/2015 11:44 AM, John Clark wrote:
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a prop engine
and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while the engine is running, you
must do it in one million small steps, and you must do it so every single one of
On 1/23/2015 11:44 AM, John Clark wrote:
Not that I can see. And in addition to condoms is lifetime celibacy also a reproductive
strategy,
It is for memes - that's why we still have priests.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/23/2015 11:44 AM, John Clark wrote:
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you
a prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
the engine is running, you must
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Well I was referring to long run as being multigenerational timescales.
Evolution is not interested in multigenerational timescales.
to me short run means within my lifetime.
To Evolution short run is the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
That is incorrect. Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better
in the *SHORT* run.
There is a point where the antropomorphisation of evolution breaks,
Yes, but I'm very far from that point.
Evolution
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace
Moreover, I think that you are inconsistent. If consciousness precedes
everything including logic, truth existence etc. Then you can not demote
what consciousness perceive to mere usefulness. Neiter you can call what
is consciously perceived as false, and posit something unknown and external
as
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking
about, along these lines (I believe).
It is interesting that there are a number of models
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it entirely
with evolutionary usefulness - does that change anything?
I think it might. For example, suppose we all
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
the man who invented the condom transcend Darwinism.
I disagree. We are all still all the product of Darwinist processes. We
are all at
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs
about the mathematical nature of the universe.
The purpose of brains is to
Hi John,
I just have a simple question then. Do you know you're conscious?
Cheers!
Telmo.
Brent, Telmo and all others 'consciousness' anchored members:
It is an easy cop-out to say the c term is too complicated to be
identified.
If we want to use it we better knowWHAT we wnt to use. My
anything above the machine's interview, just listen to the
machine and taken her seriously enough.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 7:43 am
Subject: Re: Manifesto Rex
Hi
On 22 Jan 2015, at 6:07 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the
universe is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our
minds is intentional or we are
On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been
thinking about, along these lines (I believe).
It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that
are prima facie as plausible as any other but are more
On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken
to it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality
into
On 20 Jan 2015, at 21:43, Kim Jones wrote:
On 20 Jan 2015, at 11:43 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we
are not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal
because time itself is a dream.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to
On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it
entirely with
On 1/22/2015 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
False beliefs are detrimental to survival. E.g. if a society believed that winter would
not come again, they might not store food away for those harder times. If another
society didn't believe in GR, they wouldn't have been able to make GPS satellites
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it entirely
with evolutionary
On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it entirely
with
evolutionary usefulness - does that change anything?
I think it might. For
On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it
entirely with evolutionary usefulness - does that change anything?
I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same
On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true
beliefs about the mathematical nature of the universe.
But Gödel + Church + Kleene + Post + Turing +
On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to it's logical
conclusion,
On 1/22/2015 9:44 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it entirely
with
evolutionary usefulness - does that change anything?
I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. It is
evolutionary useful to
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
the man who invented the condom transcend Darwinism.
I disagree. We are all still all the product of Darwinist processes. We
are all at the end of a long line of machines that successfully produced
viable
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic.
That would be consistent with my idea that consciousness is easy but
intelligence is hard and is the reason Evolution developed animals that
were conscious of
Brent, Telmo and all others 'consciousness' anchored members:
It is an easy cop-out to say the c term is too complicated to be
identified.
If we want to use it we better knowWHAT we wnt to use. My definition is
response to relations - another cop-out, because it is hard to identify
RELATION (and
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to
it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs
about the mathematical nature of the universe.
Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random
(i.e., not specially chosen) set of
That is not what I was thinking, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Rex
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic.
That would be
On 22 Jan 2015, at 3:58 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a mathematical
universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs about the
mathematical nature of the universe.
Under Bruno's neoplatonic
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
No.
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution,
On 1/21/2015 8:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since evolution seems to only
care about survival and reproduction - not truth. So how do evolved beings like us
arrive at a true theory like that?
Because inferring from one thing to another
On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the universe is a setup
job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our minds is intentional or
we are enjoying a ride of some sort where we are real and the ride is the
simulation.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:55 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I would say the point here is not so much that we need to transcend
Darwinism in the sense that the theory is insufficient, but because
evolution has
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 20 Jan 2015, at 11:43 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we are
not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal because
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
No.
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to it's
logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into
I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will see my
posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines (evolution is a very
very bad name for natural selection).
But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of view is
similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking
about, along these lines (I believe).
It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that are
prima facie as plausible as any other but are more consistently rejected as
lunacy, woo,
Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 7:43 am
Subject: Re: Manifesto Rex
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking
about, along these lines (I believe).
It is interesting
of Digital Physics and
Philosophy. Digi seems to rationally explain things.
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 7:43 am
Subject: Re: Manifesto Rex
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to it's
logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into phenomenal
and noumenal realms.
We are entities whose consciousnesses are shaped only with an
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I would say the point here is not so much that we need to transcend
Darwinism in the sense that the theory is insufficient, but because
evolution has other plans for the machinery that we use to do science.
The idea that being
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to it's logical
conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into phenomenal and noumenal realms.
We are entities
On 20 Jan 2015, at 11:43 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we are not
what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal because time itself
is a dream. That there is only one consciousness and we are
82 matches
Mail list logo
