On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift wrote:
*> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard"
> problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know
> what dark matter and dark energy are.*
>
The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most
> On 24 May 2019, at 09:56, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 7:00:51 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 6:08:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 5/23/2019 3:37 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I
> On 24 May 2019, at 02:26, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:03:49 AM UTC-5, howardmarks wrote:
> Good point on the "Higgs" Boson. Especially when the discoverer said what he
> said. The experiments at CERN, Fermi Lab, etc. were run with the standard
> model in
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:51 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *(serious) scientist will just claim that he did not find evidence for
> telepathy, and never clued from this that telepathy does not exist.*
Scientists never decree that something does not exist, but they will say
that there are a
On Mon, May 27, 2019, at 09:57, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because
>> nobody knows
> On 24 May 2019, at 02:00, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 6:08:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 5/23/2019 3:37 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I understand the Christian New
>> Testament are mythic narratives meant to bring
> On 25 May 2019, at 03:34, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> These passages you quote are thick. In fact reading the Koran became a chore
> out of shear boredom with this. It is not so much horrifying, but damned
> soporific. There are pages after page of this sort of thing, some with
>
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:19 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
> *From a (neo)platonic perspective, atheism is a slight variant of
> Christianity:*
I see. So according to the (neo) platonic perspective a philosophy that
says there is no God is just a slight variant of a philosophy that says
Jesus is the
> On 24 May 2019, at 04:27, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 23-May-2019, at 10:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> You said that you did not want to debate. I read all your post, and reply
>> long ago explains what I am not convinced, and why I think it departs from
>> the sort of truth
> On 25 May 2019, at 17:12, Tomasz Rola wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:25:16AM -0500, howardmarks wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> In 20 years, Randi's team couldn't find one person that could
>> perform under any conditions - and PSICOP, ditto, for 100 years. And
>> then, there's Michael
I'm not necessarily smarter as I am honest. When I look at the
phenomenology of consciousness and I see certain things, I cannot then lie
to myself that I haven't seen those things. If I had countless telepathies
and precognitions especially in relations to loved ones, I cannot then lie
that
Also, another question would be: What is your view on time ? Do
computations happen in time or does time emerges out of atemporal
computations ?
On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Ask any question for more explanation,
>
>
--
You received this message because
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 6:19:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 May 2019, at 09:56, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
> The advantage for being raised Protestant is that the only next step is
> atheism - the ultimate Protestantism.
>
>
> From a (neo)platonic perspective, atheism is a
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:
>
> *> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard"
>> problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know
>> what dark matter and
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 12:50:22 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 7:59:45 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> ... many centuries ago scientists stopped investigating the possibility
>> that ... stars are just white pinpricks on a black celestial sphere ...
>>
>
I see that the majority way of thinking of people is the dismissive kind.
Tell them "there is telepathy" and they will say "no there isn't!". The
problem with this attitude is that it is end of story. How do this people
that dismiss everything expect progress to be made ? They say: "Let the
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 5:19:08 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I see that the majority way of thinking of people is the dismissive kind.
> Tell them "there is telepathy" and they will say "no there isn't!". The
> problem with this attitude is that it is end of story. How do this people
>
Cosmin, it seems that you don't understand the very important concept of
Karl Popper's falsifiability - a main basis used in reasoning and in the
scientific method to determine whether a hypothesis or theory is true or
false. Look it up in wikipedia or many, many sources.
If you don't create
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 7:59:45 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> ... many centuries ago scientists stopped investigating the possibility
> that ... stars are just white pinpricks on a black celestial sphere ...
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>>
>>
Sounds a bit like the holographic principle:
Atheism is only a belief. And an awful one. Elementary philosophy brings
strong arguments for the existence of God. My own view is that we are all
God that forgot about himself in order to actually experience life.
On Monday, 27 May 2019 21:40:48 UTC+3, Jason wrote:
>
>
> Then is atheism not a
This, somehow makes me hungry for apples.
-Original Message-
From: John Clark
To: everything-list
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2019 8:20 am
Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:19 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
> From a (neo)platonic perspective, atheism is a slight
After such a long post, you only showed that you failed to understand what
unification is. The details are precise in the sense that
sub-consciousnesses unified. Then, on top of that unification, different
new qualia have been emerged on the 2 different consciousnesses. The fact
that the final
When a phenomenon is real, you cannot falsify it. Is elementary logic. If I
see red, you cannot falsify me seeing red.
On Monday, 27 May 2019 00:05:16 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>
> When one observes a real phenomenon, then one can create (again
> falsifiable) theories to explain the phenomenon.
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Philip Thrift wrote:
> >> if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that its
>> mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the
>> universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can be
>> proven that
Are you aware of Roger Penrose writings about non-computable phenomena ?
On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> computation
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
I like the notion, raised (sort of) about 15 years ago, by physicists, Andreas
Albrecht, and L. Sorbo, where as, God was produced, in a purely, as a wave
function from as a Boltzmann Brain. Dr. Marchal considers this idiocy (and he
may be right) but, I enjoy it. I mean, it explains things, but
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 7:59:46 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote:
>
> Consciousness is the stage within which all these phenomena are observed.
> It is a qualitatively different thing, unlike any other thing I can think
> of.
>
> It's like asking the difference between "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars",
>
On Monday, May 27, 2019, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:51 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >
>> *(serious) scientist will just claim that he did not find evidence for
>> telepathy, and never clued from this that telepathy does not exist.*
>
>
> Scientists never decree that something
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 3:28:11 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Philip Thrift > wrote:
>
>
>> >> if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that its
>>> mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the
>>> universe
On 5/27/2019 12:57 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:
>> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of
consciousness" because nobody knows exactly
On 5/27/2019 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Since it requires a lot of energy the machine is large, the detectors
are large and it is a major undertaking. I don't have Higgs particles
in my pocket.
Really? How does your handkerchief get a mass?
Mass comes from interaction with the Higgs
Cosmin:
Your "gut feeling" that the exchange with your girl friend on facebook
was telepathy - is an example of raw belief in telepathy, not rigor. You
believed that your facebook exchange was a sample of unification of you
and your girl friend's sub-consciousnesses. (I did get what you meant
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:
>
>
>> >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness"
>>> because nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be
>>> used to
*Consciousness and Topologically Structured Phenomenal Spaces*
Robert Prentner
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30822650
PsyArXiv preprint: https://psyarxiv.com/at53n/
Abstract
There are strong reasons to believe that our conscious inner life is
structured, suggested both by introspection
> On 25 May 2019, at 12:12, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> I told you: The definition of a number is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. If you
> start seeing number as being alive, then you have a problem.
Yes, number are not alive, nor machine, nor brains, no piece of matter, nor
> On 24 May 2019, at 14:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> In its proof theory.
OK. Thus you get it at the meta-level, that is also the case with Mechanism.
But to get the universal machine, you need finitism, and some infinities or at
least powerful induction axiom for the definition of the
> On 23 May 2019, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2019 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> That is the original sense of “god” by those who invented theology, from
>> which they extracted physics and mathematics as competing theory about the
>>
> On 24 May 2019, at 00:37, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 12:35:39 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about God.
> I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate the
> subject. It is
38 matches
Mail list logo
