Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Up.

On Wednesday 4 September 2024 at 13:38:57 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:

> A-OK !
>
> On Wednesday, September 4, 2024 at 4:28:44 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
>> @Alan. Great! If you ever read it, I will like to hear your opinion about 
>> the details of how this is done.
>>
>> On Wednesday 28 August 2024 at 08:37:17 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have the energy now to read your paper, but fwiw, I agree that 
>>> the key to consciousness is self-reference. AG
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:09:53 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>>
 I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" 
 which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It 
 can be found on my philpeople profile:
 https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan

>>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ac79ac0-210e-4b77-8a36-49bf740ab2c0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: By far this is the smartest AI yet

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

An object cannot be smart. Only consciousness is smart.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5f1f45f-e547-48d7-b787-7840578be8een%40googlegroups.com.

Re: New AI has an IQ of 120

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Intelligence is the ability of consciousness to bring new ideas into 
existence out of nothing. Given this consideration, you just proved that 
your IQ is around 80.

On Wednesday 18 September 2024 at 20:09:26 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> *This is why OpenAI o1 preview (alias strawberry, alias Q*)  is so 
> exciting, previous AIs have topped out at about IQ 90, but this one has a 
> 120 IQ. Last November, when this thing was developed, it got everybody so 
> hot and bothered that they fired Sam Altman as head of OpenAI, and then 
> quickly hired him back. I wonder what they've been doing undercover at 
> OpenAI's skunk works for the last 10 months.  *
>
>
> [image: 908B34C4-BB0E-4258-A458-E9F087B90BAA_1_105_c.jpeg]
>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 2oI
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce3f8eb4-25b8-4043-9446-7570ffb4bc88n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Flat universe implies no Big Bang and Singularity at T = 0

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Universe doesn't exist. "Universe" is just an idea in consciousness. The 
Big Bang never happened in any past, since past doesn't exist. Only the 
eternal present moment exist. And in the eternal present moment, Big Bang 
happens at all times, since each moment is a moment of creation in which 
the world is being imagined into existence by consciousness inside itself.

On Thursday 19 September 2024 at 10:14:01 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 7:23:38 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 7:02:12 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 6:50:53 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 9/18/2024 5:19 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 8:12 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 5:40:42 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 1:16 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *I'll get back to you on this. I was thinking, as x increases positively 
> or negatively, the y values (angles) repeat multiple times, making the 
> function many-to-one. In this case, we're mapping all the real numbers, to 
> a subset of the y-axis. Am I mistaken? AG *
>
>
> *Arctan(1) = the angle whose tangent = 1. Isn't this angle 90 deg or 
> pi/2?  So your plot seems wrong, but it's what is on the Internet. AG *
>
>
> *That's wrong. Arctan(1) = pi/4, which is what the plot indicates. But I 
> still think the plot keeps repeating as x increases or decreases. AG*
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> *1) **The range of the Arctangent function is the interval (-π/2,π/2) and 
> its range is all the real numbers.*
>
> * 2) By dividing by π,  the range scales to (-1/2, 1/2).*
>
> * 3) Adding 1/2 shifts the range to (0,1) *
>
> *4) Thus for every real number x there is a unique number y between zero 
> and one that corresponds to it, and that number is Y=1/2 + 1/π Arctan(x) . 
> As I said before, the domain is all the real numbers and the range is (0,1)*
>  
>
>
> *> Yes, but initially you were seeking a 1-1 function, but this one is 
> many-to-one. AG *
>
>  FOR DARWIN'S SAKE! I GIVE UP!
>
>
> Could'a told ya.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *Why are you so inclined to join the asshole club? I just made an error. 
> Are you immune from that? AG*
>
>
>  *I conjectured that Inflation caused the unobservable universe to come 
> into existence, an original thought you ignore, but your inclination is to 
> be petty. Too many physicists are revealed to be a'holes and I see no cure 
> for that. AG*
>
>
> *I admit it's puzzling. Whereas tangent 0 degrees = tangent 360 degrees = 
> 0, and arctan 0 degrees = 0, I thought arctan 360 degrees is also 0, but it 
> apparently isn't. This is how I concluded y = arctan(x) is many-to-one. AG*
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83734db9-8fdb-4517-9388-36d04aaf70d5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Radius of the Observable universe

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Universe doesn't exist. "Universe" is just an idea in consciousness.

On Thursday 19 September 2024 at 12:14:33 UTC+3 Jesse Mazer wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:57 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 5:30:06 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 2:01 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 4:20:31 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 2:40 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 10:12:53 AM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 7:41 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 16, 2024 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> The Scientific American article "Misconceptions About The Big Bang" by 
>> Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis at 
>> https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf 
>> (distilled from their more technical review 'Expanding Confusion' at 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 ) covers this question on p. 
>> 42-43, along with other common misconceptions:
>>
>> "Running to Stay Still
>> the idea of seeing faster-than-light galaxies may sound mystical, but it 
>> is made possible by changes in the expansion rate. Imagine a light beam 
>> that is farther than the Hubble distance of 14 billion light-years and 
>> trying to travel in our direction. It is moving toward us at the speed of 
>> light with respect to its local space, but its local space is receding from 
>> us faster than the speed of light. Although the light beam is traveling 
>> toward us at the maximum speed possible, it cannot keep up with the 
>> stretching of space. It is a bit like a child trying to run the wrong way 
>> on a moving sidewalk. Photons at the Hubble distance are like the Red Queen 
>> and Alice, running as fast as they can just to stay in the same place.
>>
>> One might conclude that the light beyond the Hubble distance would never 
>> reach us and that its source would be forever undetectable. But the Hubble 
>> distance is not fixed, because the Hubble constant, on which it depends, 
>> changes with time. In particular, the constant is proportional to the rate 
>> of increase in the distance between two galaxies, divided by that distance. 
>> (Any two galaxies can be used for this calculation.) In models of the 
>> universe that fit the observational data, the
>> denominator increases faster than the numerator, so the Hubble constant 
>> decreases. In this way, the Hubble distance gets larger. As it does, light 
>> that was initially just outside the Hubble distance and receding from us 
>> can come within the Hubble distance. The photons then find themselves in a 
>> region of space that is receding slower than the speed of light. Thereafter 
>> they can approach us.
>>
>> The galaxy they came from, though, may continue to recede superluminally. 
>> Thus, we can observe light from galaxies that have always been and will 
>> always be receding faster than the speed of light. Another way to put it is 
>> that the Hubble distance is not fixed and does not mark the edge of the 
>> observable universe.
>>
>>
>> *I don't think this is the consensus view, which is that the Hubble 
>> constant IS constant, and galaxies beyond our event horizon will never be 
>> seen, if the universe in their region is expanding faster than c. AG *
>>
>>
>> Davis and Lineweaver are just reviewing the current consensus view in 
>> that article and paper, not suggesting any new physics. In general 
>> relativity's cosmological solutions there is a time-dependent "Hubble 
>> parameter" whose value at any given cosmological time is called the "Hubble 
>> constant" at that time, but which can change over the long term (see the 
>> first paragraph of 
>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/graphic_history/hubb_const.html 
>> for example). Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel mentions in an article at 
>> https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/hubble-constant-changes-time/ 
>> that even in models that don't have accelerating expansion due to the 
>> cosmological constant, the Hubble constant still need not be constant in 
>> time. He explains this by looking at the first Friedmann equation governing 
>> an expanding universe, where a term equivalent to the definition of the 
>> Hubble constant is on the left side of the equality and the right side has 
>> terms for energy density, global curvature of space, and the cosmological 
>> constant. So, in an expanding universe that's spatially flat and has zero 
>> cosmological constant, if the energy density is changing as matter/energy 
>> becomes more spread out, the term equivalent to the Hubble constant must be 
>> changing as well. From the article:
>>
>> "Even if you had a flat Universe (which means you can eliminate the 
>> second term on the right-hand side) and a Universe without a cosmological 
>> constant (which

Re: I am God

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Yes, I am God. I create every moment my life. All the qualia that I see I 
create on the spot.

On Saturday 7 September 2024 at 23:27:43 UTC+3 Samiya Illias wrote:

> God is the Creator of Existence and Reality. 
> God is the Sustainer of all that exists. 
>
> You imagine differently. 
>
>
> On 04-Sep-2024, at 3:22 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> @Samiya. You don't understand what God is. God is existence. Everything 
> that exist is God and is that way precisely because that's how God is.
>
>
>
> On Saturday 31 August 2024 at 18:37:19 UTC+3 Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>> @Cosmin 
>> My God gives life and death, and controls everything. He makes the Sun 
>> rise from the East. Can you make the Sun rise from the West tomorrow? 
>>
>> On 31-Aug-2024, at 4:03 PM, PGC  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 8:45:19 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
>> > I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming 
>> > infinite dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ? 
>> My dreams are finite and rather inconsistent.  That's how you can tell 
>> dreams from reality.  Everybody shares the same reality.
>>
>>
>> I have no idea. Brent could have dreamt that. Turtles all the way down.
>>
>> And indeed, Tao and Hindu writings are but a few examples of different 
>> cultures coming to similar metaphysical conclusions, sometimes thousands of 
>> years before Cosmin found "the theory of everything that people have been 
>> searching for millenia". Curious. It's embedded according to some scholars 
>> in the Namaste greeting, as is noted even on Wikipedia (I guess they read 
>> Cosmin and retroactively changed their pages to update them):
>>
>>
>>
>> *According to the Indologist Stephen Phillips, the terms "te and tvam" 
>> are an informal, familiar form of "you" in Sanskrit, and it is typically 
>> not used for unfamiliar adults. It is reserved for someone familiar, 
>> intimate, divine or a child.[16][17] By using the dative form of tvam in 
>> the greeting Namas-te, there is an embedded secondary, metaphorical sense 
>> in the word. This is the basis of the pragmatic meaning of Namas-te, that 
>> is "salutations to the (divine) child (in your heart)", states 
>> Phillips.[16]*
>> *In the contemporary era, namaḥ means 'bow', 'obeisance', 'reverential 
>> salutation' or 'adoration'[18] and te means 'to you' (singular dative case 
>> of 'tvam'). Therefore, namaste literally means "bowing to you".[19] In 
>> Hinduism, it also has a spiritual import reflecting the belief that "the 
>> divine and self (atman, Self) is same in you and me", and connotes "I bow 
>> to the divine in you".[20][5][21] According to sociologist Holly Oxhandler, 
>> it is a Hindu term which means "the sacred in me recognizes the sacred in 
>> you".[22] *
>>
>> That's an entire culture, as it lives and worships today, that recognizes 
>> and greets each other, not just knowing "We are all one and the same God" 
>> as per Cosmin's original post and similar statements, but actually 
>> acknowledging what they consider to be that fact (Of course, given more 
>> nuance than I have time for).  No need to thank us. Cosmin. Just send the 
>> checks in Euro for proofreading your writings plus consultant fees to 
>> Brent, Quentin, Alan, Terren, and yours truly. If you pay and raise our 
>> fees, we have better problems/perspectives to offer. Also, the more you 
>> raise consultant and proofreading fees in general, the more the same gods 
>> will recognize the god in you. 😄 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27e1b211-e9fb-4b98-a792-46c944bff3aen%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27e1b211-e9fb-4b98-a792-46c944bff3aen%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Alan. Great! If you ever read it, I will like to hear your opinion about 
the details of how this is done.

On Wednesday 28 August 2024 at 08:37:17 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:

> I don't have the energy now to read your paper, but fwiw, I agree that the 
> key to consciousness is self-reference. AG
>
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:09:53 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" 
>> which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It 
>> can be found on my philpeople profile:
>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/496746c5-1e26-4c40-bc6d-bf189fcb84c2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Realization that the physical world doesn't exist

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@John Clark. Don't worry crackpot, one day a female will also unvirgin you. 
Keep your hopes up!

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/64357bbf-6a0d-4d72-8498-f700993a2f85n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Realization that the physical world doesn't exist

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Alan. Exactly!

On Saturday 31 August 2024 at 12:08:03 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:

> *When a superior man hears of the Tao,*
> *he immediately begins to embody it.*
> *When an average man hears of the Tao,*
> *he half believes it, half doubts it.*
> *When a foolish man hears of the Tao,*
> *he laughs out loud.*
> *If he didn't laugh,*
> *it wouldn't be the Tao.*
>
> On Saturday, August 31, 2024 at 12:16:33 AM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/2024 4:34 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Or maybe, what you call "intersubjective agreement" is nothing more than 
>> a subtle collective illusion? AG
>>
>> Maybe, but in the meantime I'm betting on reality.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 12:43:23 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/30/2024 12:47 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
>>> > Why do people not realize that the physical world doesn't exist, that 
>>> > is just an idea in consciousness ? 
>>> Because everyone agrees on the same idea.  Reality is intersubjective 
>>> agreement. 
>>>
>>> Brent 
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ea15871-e49d-4878-9cb3-5fb139bc895fn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ea15871-e49d-4878-9cb3-5fb139bc895fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84693d02-2ec4-487f-8b2f-963abf0383abn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Realization that the physical world doesn't exist

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Brent. So is the duck-rabbit a duck or a rabbit ?

On Friday 30 August 2024 at 21:43:23 UTC+3 Brent Meeker wrote:

>
>
>
> On 8/30/2024 12:47 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> > Why do people not realize that the physical world doesn't exist, that 
> > is just an idea in consciousness ?
> Because everyone agrees on the same idea.  Reality is intersubjective 
> agreement.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0782fbb6-84e5-40d6-8547-81841f00d2den%40googlegroups.com.

What do virgins hope to gain on the internet ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What do virgins hope to gain on the internet ? Clearly no female will 
unvirgin them, so what is the point of hating random people on the internet 
? How does that make them nonvirgin ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39b5b272-1e13-457e-a559-b447df0530b9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: I am God

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Samiya. You don't understand what God is. God is existence. Everything 
that exist is God and is that way precisely because that's how God is.

On Saturday 31 August 2024 at 18:37:19 UTC+3 Samiya Illias wrote:

> @Cosmin 
> My God gives life and death, and controls everything. He makes the Sun 
> rise from the East. Can you make the Sun rise from the West tomorrow? 
>
> On 31-Aug-2024, at 4:03 PM, PGC  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 8:45:19 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
> > I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming 
> > infinite dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ? 
> My dreams are finite and rather inconsistent.  That's how you can tell 
> dreams from reality.  Everybody shares the same reality.
>
>
> I have no idea. Brent could have dreamt that. Turtles all the way down.
>
> And indeed, Tao and Hindu writings are but a few examples of different 
> cultures coming to similar metaphysical conclusions, sometimes thousands of 
> years before Cosmin found "the theory of everything that people have been 
> searching for millenia". Curious. It's embedded according to some scholars 
> in the Namaste greeting, as is noted even on Wikipedia (I guess they read 
> Cosmin and retroactively changed their pages to update them):
>
>
>
> *According to the Indologist Stephen Phillips, the terms "te and tvam" are 
> an informal, familiar form of "you" in Sanskrit, and it is typically not 
> used for unfamiliar adults. It is reserved for someone familiar, intimate, 
> divine or a child.[16][17] By using the dative form of tvam in the greeting 
> Namas-te, there is an embedded secondary, metaphorical sense in the word. 
> This is the basis of the pragmatic meaning of Namas-te, that is 
> "salutations to the (divine) child (in your heart)", states Phillips.[16]*
> *In the contemporary era, namaḥ means 'bow', 'obeisance', 'reverential 
> salutation' or 'adoration'[18] and te means 'to you' (singular dative case 
> of 'tvam'). Therefore, namaste literally means "bowing to you".[19] In 
> Hinduism, it also has a spiritual import reflecting the belief that "the 
> divine and self (atman, Self) is same in you and me", and connotes "I bow 
> to the divine in you".[20][5][21] According to sociologist Holly Oxhandler, 
> it is a Hindu term which means "the sacred in me recognizes the sacred in 
> you".[22] *
>
> That's an entire culture, as it lives and worships today, that recognizes 
> and greets each other, not just knowing "We are all one and the same God" 
> as per Cosmin's original post and similar statements, but actually 
> acknowledging what they consider to be that fact (Of course, given more 
> nuance than I have time for).  No need to thank us. Cosmin. Just send the 
> checks in Euro for proofreading your writings plus consultant fees to 
> Brent, Quentin, Alan, Terren, and yours truly. If you pay and raise our 
> fees, we have better problems/perspectives to offer. Also, the more you 
> raise consultant and proofreading fees in general, the more the same gods 
> will recognize the god in you. 😄 
>
> -- 
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27e1b211-e9fb-4b98-a792-46c944bff3aen%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27e1b211-e9fb-4b98-a792-46c944bff3aen%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/04300037-8d7e-4a39-bc54-2f71e4e88ac6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: I am God

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Alan. Exactly!

On Saturday 31 August 2024 at 02:55:55 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:

> When a superior person hears of the Tao,
> She diligently puts it into practice.
> When an average person hears of the Tao,
> he believes half of it, and doubts the other half.
> When a foolish person hears of the Tao,
> he laughs out loud at the very idea.
> If he didn’t laugh,
> it wouldn’t be the Tao.
>
> On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 12:45:19 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
>> > I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming 
>> > infinite dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ? 
>> My dreams are finite and rather inconsistent.  That's how you can tell 
>> dreams from reality.  Everybody shares the same reality. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/28ff62cd-18cd-4067-ace5-25d300134211n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: I am God

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Brent, so is the duck-rabbit a duck or a rabbit ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aa37af70-584b-4d8f-a71c-86fc0f2035a7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: I am God

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@PGC. People that need references when they cannot even read the main text 
have IQ of 2 digits and are also sexually virgin. No point having any 
discussion with them. Enjoy!

On Friday 30 August 2024 at 15:03:11 UTC+3 PGC wrote:

> On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 9:48:12 AM UTC+2 Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming 
> infinite dreams. 
>
>
> These kinds of statements become problematic when expressed publicly. It's 
> the same error of institutionalized religions, that make the equivalence 
> between possible personal private beliefs and normative public statements 
> ("should be taught in schools and all the other 'shoulds' that are 
> implied), seem legitimate. 
>
> But it's the kind of statement I'd expect from you. Your papers contain 
> close to zero (if not zero) references to all the work of others that have 
> informed similar metaphysical positions. It's intellectual theft. You 
> apparently don't care to signal that you take ideas from other writers and 
> even from this list/members.
>
> And that makes you fail at being credible. For even if we include the 
> rather large nuance that you made a private statement above and do not seek 
> authority (it's transparent and obvious by now that you do, seeking naive 
> followers and taking others' ideas to be your own, insults etc.), it's 
> clear that you don't live by the implications of your own statement: Would 
> a god recognizing the god/themselves in others not respect other people in 
> basic discourse without personal attacks, stealing ideas, and normative 
> statements like "you haven't read my papers enough!" or "You read them in 
> the wrong way because you are sexually frustrated". You do not abide by 
> your own conviction and loose credibility.
>
> The list is immune to these cheap rhetorical tricks that showcase more 
> your own insecurities, lack of faith in your own assertions (such as the 
> one above) and frustrations than anybody else's.
>
> If we are all one in some private sense, it follows that you recognize 
> that same quality in others and act accordingly. In particular, not 
> confusing private beliefs with normative public assertions. That is the 
> manipulative move of thieves, institutional religions, ideologists, 
> fanatics, tyrants etc.
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8dc1b61b-0892-491a-8128-d21e461a0a30n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: I am God

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@John Clark, People that use the word crackpot have IQ of 2 digits. No 
point having any discussion with them. Enjoy!

On Friday 30 August 2024 at 14:04:20 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:48 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ?
>>
>
> Because most people are not crackpots, not even in Florida despite the 
> governor's incessant efforts to increase the number of ignoramuses in his 
> state.  
>
> Major Publishers, Authors Guild Sue Over New Florida Book Banning Law 
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=Florida+lawsuit+Public+School+libraries&gs_ivs=1#tts=0>
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> rds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ee480d0-4a01-441a-8944-e934ebc8a417n%40googlegroups.com.

I am God

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming infinite 
dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7be2cf1a-ce58-4af3-b1d8-3eb4c4271a57n%40googlegroups.com.

Realization that the physical world doesn't exist

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Why do people not realize that the physical world doesn't exist, that is 
just an idea in consciousness ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d45ab806-ccd6-4e1c-bedd-203d543c3aaan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Up.

On Thursday 27 June 2024 at 17:43:15 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> I offer this with all sincerity: I mean no disrespect, and I have nothing 
> against you personally. I do see why my comment about your paper being 
> "speculative" comes across as disrespectful, so please accept my apologies. 
> It's true that I haven't given your paper the attention required to make a 
> judgment like that. 
>
> If you're willing to continue with me, then please understand that I'm 
> someone who has to be pretty selective about how I allocate my time and 
> energy. Engaging with me means engaging with someone who is not going to 
> read your paper in its entirety until I know it's worth my time. Thus far 
> my comments/questions have been about testing to see if it *is* worth my 
> time. If *that* comes across as disrespectful, then let's just move on. 
> Otherwise, please give me the grace to come from misunderstandings that 
> need correction, and please correct my misunderstandings without resorting 
> to insults. And I will avoid jumping to conclusions. If we can do that, 
> maybe we can both benefit from a discussion. No hard feelings either way.
>
> Terren
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:17 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Terren. You clearly don't know to use the computer. For example, mouse 
>> has a wheel. If you use that wheel, page moves. When page moves, new things 
>> appear in the page. Like for example part 2 of the paper. Also, in case 
>> your mouse doesn't have a wheel, there is also a scrollbar on the right 
>> side of the window. If you click on that scrollbar and keep the click 
>> pressed, you can then move the scrollbar up and down. By moving the 
>> scrollbar up and down, new things appear in the page. Like for example part 
>> 2 of the paper.
>>
>> Also, the fact that you call it "speculative", only shows that you are 
>> full of hatred and are unwilling to engage. Then your presence is pointless 
>> on this topic. Why are you here ? To freely hate on people ? Pathetic.
>>
>> On Wednesday 26 June 2024 at 15:51:48 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> That paragraph is not in the paper you posted (here 
>>> <https://philpapers.org/archive/VISHSB.pdf>)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:25 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some might wonder, if we cannot speak
>>>> about it, why are we sure that it is the one that brings consciousness 
>>>> into existence. The reason
>>>> we can do this is because we observe the phenomenology of qualia (like 
>>>> inclusion and
>>>> transcendence of levels) and conclude that this is possible only if 
>>>> some entity that we call “self-reference”
>>>> must “exist”."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by "inclusion" or "transcendance of levels", 
>>> so it's not clear why self-reference must exist for qualia. 
>>>  
>>>
>>>> I understand that we live in an age where attention span has been 
>>>> reduced to 5 seconds. Nothing wrong with that. But if that is your 
>>>> attention span, then you should employ it for tik-tok videos. Other 
>>>> subjects require a different attention span.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's just unnecessary. At least I'm engaging with your paper. And, for 
>>> what it's worth, I'm busy. Having something like Claude that can summarize 
>>> 17 pages of speculative philosophy is the only way I was going to do that. 
>>>
>>> Terren
>>>   
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 21:32:24 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From your paper, you define self-reference as: "Let self-reference be 
>>>>> the entity with the property of looking-back-at-itself."
>>>>>
>>>>> Your definition invokes the concepts *entity*, *property*, 
>>>>> *looking-back*, and *itself*. That's a lot of complexity for 
>>>>> something that is fundamental.  It's easy for me to imagine *entities 
>>>>> *with different *properties* (i.e. that don't *look-back-on-itself), *but 
>>>>> only because I'm starting from a linguistic perspective that already 
>>>>> defines *entities *and *properties, *and *looking-back-at-itself.* 
>>>>> You don't ha

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Jason. Uuu... big boy beliving in Santa Claus! Way to go!

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:50:10 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> So, where is Santa Claus ? 
>
>
> If he's possible in this universe he exists very far away. If he's not 
> possible in this universe but possible in other universes then he exists in 
> some subset of those universes where he is possible. If he's not logically 
> possible he doesn't exist anywhere.
>
>
> Also, does he bring presents to all the children in the world in 1 night ? 
>> How does he do that ?
>>
>
> He sprinkles fairy dust all over the planet (nano bot swarms) which travel 
> down chimneys to self-assemble presents from ambient matter, after they 
> scan the brain's of sleeping children to see if they are naughty or nice 
> and what present they hoped for.
>
> Jason 
>
>
>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 07:31:46 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 6:38 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So based on your definition, Santa Claus exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe everything possible exists.
>>>
>>> That is the idea this mail list was created to discuss, after all. (That 
>>> is why it is called the "everything list")
>>>
>>> Jason 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 00:47:28 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 5:17 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brain doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it exists as an object in consciousness, which is as much as 
>>>>> exist would mean under idealism. Rather than say things don't exist, I 
>>>>> think it would be better to redefine what is meant by existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, and all objects exist in the mind of God. So "exist" goes back 
>>>>> to meaning what it has always meant, as Markus Mueller said (roughly): "A 
>>>>> exists for B, when changing the state of A can change the state of B, and 
>>>>> vice versa, under certain auxiliary conditions."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See my papers, like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": 
>>>>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have, and replied with comments and questions. You, however, 
>>>>> dismissed them as me not having read your paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen my paper on how computational observers build the world? 
>>>>> It reaches a similar conclusion to yours:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/jason-k-resch
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday 8 July 2024 at 23:35:12 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:04 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:12 PM Jason Resch  
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *>Consciousness is a prerequisite of intelligence.*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you've got that backwards, intelligence is a prerequisite 
>>>>>>>> of consciousness. And the possibility of intelligent ACTIONS is a  
>>>>>>>> prerequisite for Darwinian natural selection to have evolved it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree, but will explain below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *> One can be conscious without being intelligent,*
>>>>>>>>>
>>

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Who cares about the Turing test ? What does it have to do with being alive 
? =)))

On Friday 12 July 2024 at 03:09:57 UTC+3 Brent Meeker wrote:

>
>
> On 7/11/2024 1:56 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> *> A rock, along with many other things, can't pass a first grade 
>> arithmetic tes either; but that doesn't show that anything that can't pass 
>> a first grade arithmetic test is unintelligent or unconscious, as for 
>> example an octopus or a 3yr old child.*
>>
>
> And because of their failure to pass a first year arithmetic test we would 
> say that a rock, an octopus and a three year old child are not behaving 
> very intelligently. 
>
>
>
> *In case you've forgotten, the Turing test was based on text only 
> communication between an interlocutor asked to distinguish between a 
> computer pretending to be a human and a man or woman pretending to be a 
> woman or man.  It's already been passed by some LLM's by dumbing-down their 
> response.  It may be all you've got but it's a very poor test that can't 
> tell the difference between a 3yr old and a rock. Brent*
>
>
> But as I said before, the Turing Test is not perfect, however it's all 
> we've got. If something passes the test then it's intelligent and 
> conscious. If fails the test then it may or may not be intelligent and or 
> conscious 
>
> See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> asb
>
>
>
>> -- 
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0VcZSw-%2Bk1McSRRw6DJbwpCz7efp1fA1C9jkRz9xe%2B7Q%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e007f448-a2be-42cf-8c70-65c6cb8a87a1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

AI is just a fancy word for lonely boys to give meaning to their empty 
life. lol

On Thursday 11 July 2024 at 13:48:19 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:08 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> >> That [*lack of a multiply operation*] would be no problem as long as 
>>> the AI still had the addition operation, just do repeated additions, 
>>> although it would slow things down. But you could start removing more and 
>>> more operations until you got all the way down to First Order Logic, and 
>>> then an AI could actually prove its own consistency. Kurt Godel showed that 
>>> a few years before he came up with this famous incompleteness theorem  in 
>>> what we now call Godel's Completeness Theorem. His later Incompleteness 
>>> Theorem only applies to logical systems powerful enough to do arithmetic, 
>>> and you can't do arithmetic with nothing but first order logic. The trouble 
>>> is you couldn't really say an Artificial Intelligence was intelligent if it 
>>> couldn't even pass a first grade arithmetic test.  
>>
>>
>> *> There are many levels of intelligence.  An octopus can't pass a first 
>> grade arithmetic test but it can escape thru a difficult maze*
>>
>
> Claude Shannon, the father of information theory, made a computerized 
> mouse way back in 1951 that was able to escape a difficult maze. It was a 
> big advance at the time, if the term had been invented, some would've 
> called it Artificial Intelligence. However these days nobody would call 
> something like that AI; one of the many reasons why is that it couldn't 
> pass a first grade arithmetic test.
>
>  See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> mey
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ca20647-7c96-463f-9cda-454d00eeb8bcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.

On Thursday 11 July 2024 at 22:04:14 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> Only in the most idealized sense of Turing completeness would we argue 
> whether the brain is Turing complete. Neural networks are Turing complete.
>
> If we're interested in whether consciousness requires Turing completeness, 
> it seems silly to use the brain as a *counter example* of Turing 
> completeness only because it happens to be a finite, physical object with 
> noise/errors in the system. For all practical purposes, whatever properties 
> one would confer to a Turing complete system, the brain has them.
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:43 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree Turing completeness is not required for consciousness. The human 
>> brain (given it's limited and faulty memory) wouldn't even meet the 
>> definition of being Turing complete.
>>
>> Jason 
>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/790395f7-2797-41d7-9d62-9f366a6051e7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Books

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Uuu... is comng!!! Can't waittt!!! When? When? Next year? Oh boy, oh 
boy, oh boy!

On Thursday 11 July 2024 at 20:15:32 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> I enjoyed Ray Kurzweil's new book The Singularity Is Nearer 
> 
>  so 
> much I decided to reread Eric Drexler's book "Radical Abundance" . I 
> enjoyed that one too. 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> ras
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f9e07774-80ca-4138-9983-d859f5729c5bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why do sad people hate so much ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. Don't worry. Maybe one day you will find a girlfriend to save you 
from the inceldom.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fdc727c7-71c7-49e0-9f87-c5722605cc81n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. Yes, other consciousnesses. What is it that you don't understand ?

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 20:52:13 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> If you have no idea, then just say so. Otherwise, answer the question.
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:22 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> As I said: interacting with other consciousnesses.
>>
>> On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 15:59:52 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> What specifically happens when someone "takes mushrooms" for the first 
>>> time that leads them to have a quality of consciousness that is unlike 
>>> anything they've experienced before that?  
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 3:11 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Terren. Other consciousnesses. That you cannot even imagine.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 22:45:45 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you "take mushrooms", what happens is for your consciousness to 
>>>>>> interact with the other consciousnesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What other consciousnesses?  What specifically happens when someone 
>>>>> "takes mushrooms" for the first time that leads them to have a quality of 
>>>>> consciousness that is unlike anything they've experienced before that?  
>>>>> How 
>>>>> do you explain that particular scenario in terms of interactions with 
>>>>> other 
>>>>> self-referencing entities? 
>>>>>
>>>>> And, how does that explanation dispense with the idea that the 
>>>>> (apparent) ingesting of mushrooms caused the change in consciousness?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 1:14 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Terren. "Mushrooms" are just an appearance in your consciousness 
>>>>>> that stand for other consciousnesses. When you "take mushrooms", what 
>>>>>> happens is for your consciousness to interact with the other 
>>>>>> consciousnesses. Also "internet" is a similar appearance in your 
>>>>>> consciousness. And when you "enter the internet", your consciousness 
>>>>>> changes from interacting with other consciousnesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:02:48 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're saying if I take a high dose of magic mushrooms and my 
>>>>>>> consciousness changes, it is so obvious that a 5yo kid would understand 
>>>>>>> it, 
>>>>>>> that the mushrooms *do not* cause a change to my consciousness?  
>>>>>>> That me taking mushrooms an hour before the changes to my consciousness 
>>>>>>> begin is mere correlation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Terren. Based on your logic, if when you get outside in the rain 
>>>>>>>> is cold and when you are inside the house is warm => house generates 
>>>>>>>> consciousness. Correlation is not causation. This even a 5-years old 
>>>>>>>> kid 
>>>>>>>> understands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 17:39:34 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:01 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> @Quentin @Stathis. That's where the whole magical belief in AI 
>>>>>>>>>> comes from, from believing that you are robots. Well.. breaking 
>>>>>>>>>> news: you 
>>>>>>>>>> are not! You are God. "Brain" is just a picture that you as God 
>>>>>>>>>> dreams in 
>>>>>>>>>> this dream. It doesn't actually e

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Brent. Who do you think you are for people to care about your replies ? 
= Such arrogance! =))

On Thursday 11 July 2024 at 07:14:08 UTC+3 Brent Meeker wrote:

> I hope you don't care if people also ignore your rude and arrogant posts.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 7/9/2024 11:36 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> @Quentin. Trololol. Do you think I care if you read my papers or not ? 
> = Is not my problem that you want to remain ignorant. I did 
> my part in providing knowledge to people. Now is people job if they want to 
> find the truth or not. Stop thinking yourself important.
>
> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 20:34:19 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> What a tool you are... and you're seriously expecting people to read your 
>> paper ? Learn humility and come back.
>>
>> Le mar. 9 juil. 2024, 19:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> @Jason. Omggg... I'm a genius. I studied everything. Computer science, 
>>> physics, philosophy, economy, sociology, biology, you name it, lol.
>>> I use self-reference in the proper way. The reason people are confused 
>>> is because of their own low IQ that even confuses them when it comes to 
>>> tying their own shoes.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:27:15 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:50 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @Jason. Recursion is not self-reference. If you would have read my 
>>>>> paper you would have seen that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You alluded to a familiarity with computer programming. Have you 
>>>> studied computer science?
>>>>
>>>> Is the classical way the Fibonacci sequence is defined not an example 
>>>> of self-reference as you use the term? If it's not, then you are using 
>>>> "self-reference" in a very non-standard that is sure to confuse a lot of 
>>>> people, especially computer scientists.
>>>>
>>>> Jason 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:42:42 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:04 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic 
>>>>>>> instructions such as 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (color == white) {
>>>>>>>print ("Is day");
>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>print ("Is night");
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was an objection first made by Ada Lovelace. But Turing showed 
>>>>>> that even deterministic processes can often surprise us, and behave in 
>>>>>> ways 
>>>>>> that aren't predictable (without running the computation until it 
>>>>>> finishes). E.g., does a machine halt or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I give you the program, can you tell me from looking at it what it 
>>>>>> will do? You might think you can, but consider if I gave you a program 
>>>>>> that 
>>>>>> looked for a counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture. If and when it 
>>>>>> finds 
>>>>>> it, the program prints it and then halts. Does the machine given this 
>>>>>> program halt or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might have an opinion, but if you can't prove it, then you really 
>>>>>> don't know. So far no one has been able to prove it one way or the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do 
>>>>>>> people that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical 
>>>>>>> entities 
>>>>>>> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Turing machine and (computability generally) is built on the 
>>>>>&g

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

lol. You are so obsessed with the AI as if it is some supernatural entity. 
When in fact is just a random computer program. Even worse: a computer 
program with no use whatsoever. Nobody actually uses AI for anything.

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 19:50:04 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:24 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > *Why do you even use the word AI ? Why can't use just use the words 
>> "computer program" ? Aaa... hype. Makes you look more intelligent than you 
>> actually are! Look at me: AI! AI! AI! Ooo so smrt! 
>> =*
>
>
> You sir are an ass.  
>  See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> ayr
>
>
>  
>  
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83dd0aea-3ed2-44ad-a279-19d899804c4en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Why do you even use the word AI ? Why can't use just use the words 
"computer program" ? Aaa... hype. Makes you look more intelligent than you 
actually are! Look at me: AI! AI! AI! Ooo so smrt! 
=

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e4e1166-b62d-4c51-93cb-b8fdea2663b1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

As I said: interacting with other consciousnesses.

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 15:59:52 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> What specifically happens when someone "takes mushrooms" for the first 
> time that leads them to have a quality of consciousness that is unlike 
> anything they've experienced before that?  
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 3:11 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Terren. Other consciousnesses. That you cannot even imagine.
>>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 22:45:45 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> When you "take mushrooms", what happens is for your consciousness to 
>>>> interact with the other consciousnesses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What other consciousnesses?  What specifically happens when someone 
>>> "takes mushrooms" for the first time that leads them to have a quality of 
>>> consciousness that is unlike anything they've experienced before that?  How 
>>> do you explain that particular scenario in terms of interactions with other 
>>> self-referencing entities? 
>>>
>>> And, how does that explanation dispense with the idea that the 
>>> (apparent) ingesting of mushrooms caused the change in consciousness?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 1:14 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Terren. "Mushrooms" are just an appearance in your consciousness that 
>>>> stand for other consciousnesses. When you "take mushrooms", what happens 
>>>> is 
>>>> for your consciousness to interact with the other consciousnesses. Also 
>>>> "internet" is a similar appearance in your consciousness. And when you 
>>>> "enter the internet", your consciousness changes from interacting with 
>>>> other consciousnesses.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:02:48 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying if I take a high dose of magic mushrooms and my 
>>>>> consciousness changes, it is so obvious that a 5yo kid would understand 
>>>>> it, 
>>>>> that the mushrooms *do not* cause a change to my consciousness?  That 
>>>>> me taking mushrooms an hour before the changes to my consciousness begin 
>>>>> is 
>>>>> mere correlation?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Terren. Based on your logic, if when you get outside in the rain is 
>>>>>> cold and when you are inside the house is warm => house generates 
>>>>>> consciousness. Correlation is not causation. This even a 5-years old kid 
>>>>>> understands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 17:39:34 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:01 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Quentin @Stathis. That's where the whole magical belief in AI 
>>>>>>>> comes from, from believing that you are robots. Well.. breaking news: 
>>>>>>>> you 
>>>>>>>> are not! You are God. "Brain" is just a picture that you as God dreams 
>>>>>>>> in 
>>>>>>>> this dream. It doesn't actually exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe so. But if it is true that our brains are just part of the 
>>>>>>> dream, then how do you account for the seeming one-way causality 
>>>>>>> between 
>>>>>>> the brain and the mind?  Brain damage, drugs, transcranial magnetic 
>>>>>>> stimulation, etc, all give credence to the existence of the brain, and 
>>>>>>> by 
>>>>>>> the same token all those examples are difficult to explain from the 
>>>>>>> idealist perspective you're advocating for.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can say that's all part of the dream, but that's an answer that 
>>>>>>> stops all further questions. The "hard problem" of idealism is: why 
>>

Re: Absolute freedom of speech group for consciousness discussions

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. I understand your suffering. Not having a girlfriend is the worst 
thing that can happen in life. Hang in there buddy!

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 16:01:15 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> That's something a 14 year old would say. Anyway, thanks for proving my 
> point.
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 3:10 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Terren. I'm sorry for your suffering. Hope you will find a girlfriend 
>> soon.
>>
>> On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 02:40:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> Your interactions here are a preview of what discourse on your google 
>>> group would be like. And there's a lot of words to describe that, but 
>>> "inviting" isn't one of them. 
>>>
>>> Terren
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:46 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I invite you to my absolute freedom of speech google group for 
>>>> consciousness discussions: 
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/consciousness-research
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1205111-40d6-48b6-8e08-5f6215b518fcn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1205111-40d6-48b6-8e08-5f6215b518fcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58fc66a5-39f6-4e90-9d13-ac718664ee00n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58fc66a5-39f6-4e90-9d13-ac718664ee00n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2293796d-b807-4750-8e72-13a817b57901n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Quentin. Don't worry, we will study you as a prime specimen on the sad 
persons topic.

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 13:12:23 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> So let's get it straight, we're stupid sexually frustrated low IQ people, 
> yet you're arguing here with us... stupidity is amazing.
>
> Le mer. 10 juil. 2024, 11:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
>
>> @Quentin. Sure you're certain. The internet is full of geniuses like 
>> yourself. Also, the fact that you are from the category that equates free 
>> speech with hate speech says a lot about you. It says that you are just a 
>> loser hating other more successful, and as such, he is determined to shut 
>> them down by labeling their freedom as "hatred". Typical for sexually 
>> frustrated dictators. So sad to be you.
>>
>> On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 11:57:36 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>> I'm certain you've never taken a computer science course or understood 
>>> anything about it. Your single-neuron brain, filled with hate, spews 
>>> nothing but venom. Go back to your hate speech Google group and give us a 
>>> break. Earth is often a living hell because of hateful people like you.
>>>
>>> Quentin 
>>>
>>> Le mer. 10 juil. 2024, 09:14, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Yes, by invoking Santa Claus. Because they are Santa Claus. Go and take 
>>>> some programming course! Is pathetic in the age of internet to now watch 1 
>>>> single course on youtube. You are an adult for God sake, Santa Claus is 
>>>> for 
>>>> children.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:58:16 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *>  Arguments need to be made based on reason, not on robotic plug-in 
>>>>>> of replies.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Like dismissing AI and Atomically Precise Manufacturing (a.k.a. N
>>>>> anotechnology) by invoking Santa Claus? By the way, when talking 
>>>>> about the Singularity that is coming in just the next few years, Lucifer 
>>>>> may be a more relevant fictional character then Santa Claus. 
>>>>>
>>>>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>>>>> apm
>>>>> kd0
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4ff7140-a4e4-4ddc-ae53-8980b491568fn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4ff7140-a4e4-4ddc-ae53-8980b491568fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/13d1ab9b-5287-4bda-815e-094c26937331n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/13d1ab9b-5287-4bda-815e-094c26937331n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9acf9e83-52da-4aa9-861d-d6d78b79ff14n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why do sad people hate so much ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

So as you can see ladies and gentlemen, we have here a prime specimen of 
the sad person. As you can see, he entered here just to hate on a random 
person like me, by using the word "stupid". How can we understand such 
behavior ? What determines these people to randomly hate on the internet ?

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 13:22:21 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> Either you're trolling on purpose or you're genuinely stupid... hard to 
> tell.
>
> Le mer. 10 juil. 2024, 11:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
>
>> Why do sad people hate so much ? Why do they choose to express their 
>> sadness by hating random people on the internet ? Why don't they go for a 
>> walk in nature to calm down ? What do they gain by hating on the internet ? 
>> And especially since they are doing this for decades! And their condition 
>> still doesn't improve. Also, why don't they seek professional help ? How 
>> hating on the internet brings any alleviation of their condition at all ?
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dabfd157-4987-4cd5-b3a3-253ec0564ebdn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dabfd157-4987-4cd5-b3a3-253ec0564ebdn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3a8125cf-bff0-4ea6-b0b9-68889ba2e34dn%40googlegroups.com.

Why do sad people hate so much ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Why do sad people hate so much ? Why do they choose to express their 
sadness by hating random people on the internet ? Why don't they go for a 
walk in nature to calm down ? What do they gain by hating on the internet ? 
And especially since they are doing this for decades! And their condition 
still doesn't improve. Also, why don't they seek professional help ? How 
hating on the internet brings any alleviation of their condition at all ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dabfd157-4987-4cd5-b3a3-253ec0564ebdn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Quentin. Sure you're certain. The internet is full of geniuses like 
yourself. Also, the fact that you are from the category that equates free 
speech with hate speech says a lot about you. It says that you are just a 
loser hating other more successful, and as such, he is determined to shut 
them down by labeling their freedom as "hatred". Typical for sexually 
frustrated dictators. So sad to be you.

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 11:57:36 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> I'm certain you've never taken a computer science course or understood 
> anything about it. Your single-neuron brain, filled with hate, spews 
> nothing but venom. Go back to your hate speech Google group and give us a 
> break. Earth is often a living hell because of hateful people like you.
>
> Quentin 
>
> Le mer. 10 juil. 2024, 09:14, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
>
>> Yes, by invoking Santa Claus. Because they are Santa Claus. Go and take 
>> some programming course! Is pathetic in the age of internet to now watch 1 
>> single course on youtube. You are an adult for God sake, Santa Claus is for 
>> children.
>>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:58:16 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> *>  Arguments need to be made based on reason, not on robotic plug-in 
>>>> of replies.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Like dismissing AI and Atomically Precise Manufacturing (a.k.a. N
>>> anotechnology) by invoking Santa Claus? By the way, when talking about 
>>> the Singularity that is coming in just the next few years, Lucifer may 
>>> be a more relevant fictional character then Santa Claus. 
>>>
>>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>>> apm
>>> kd0
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4ff7140-a4e4-4ddc-ae53-8980b491568fn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4ff7140-a4e4-4ddc-ae53-8980b491568fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/13d1ab9b-5287-4bda-815e-094c26937331n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: New AI training tech is 13 times faster and 10 times more power efficient

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

So what ? How does AI help with anything ? It is just a gimmick.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 21:45:51 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> *New AI training tech is 13 times faster and 10 times more power efficient 
> — DeepMind's new JEST optimizes training data for impressive gains 
> *
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> xtg
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a8ec6369-85cc-41bc-b66b-8a77d17e4dd0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

*to NOT watch.

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 10:14:44 UTC+3 Cosmin Visan wrote:

> Yes, by invoking Santa Claus. Because they are Santa Claus. Go and take 
> some programming course! Is pathetic in the age of internet to now watch 1 
> single course on youtube. You are an adult for God sake, Santa Claus is for 
> children.
>
> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:58:16 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> *>  Arguments need to be made based on reason, not on robotic plug-in of 
>>> replies.*
>>
>>
>> Like dismissing AI and Atomically Precise Manufacturing (a.k.a. N
>> anotechnology) by invoking Santa Claus? By the way, when talking about 
>> the Singularity that is coming in just the next few years, Lucifer may 
>> be a more relevant fictional character then Santa Claus. 
>>
>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>> apm
>> kd0
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/302abb34-d50b-43f0-8d7a-be9610dee6c7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Yes, by invoking Santa Claus. Because they are Santa Claus. Go and take 
some programming course! Is pathetic in the age of internet to now watch 1 
single course on youtube. You are an adult for God sake, Santa Claus is for 
children.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:58:16 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>> *>  Arguments need to be made based on reason, not on robotic plug-in of 
>> replies.*
>
>
> Like dismissing AI and Atomically Precise Manufacturing (a.k.a. N
> anotechnology) by invoking Santa Claus? By the way, when talking about 
> the Singularity that is coming in just the next few years, Lucifer may be 
> a more relevant fictional character then Santa Claus. 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> apm
> kd0
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4ff7140-a4e4-4ddc-ae53-8980b491568fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Brent. Playing with words doesn't make you smart. Quite the opposite. 
Maaan... you people are so boring. You have the same memes that you keep 
repeating over and over and over again. Zero presence of intelligent 
thought. Just memes.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d80fc9c-300a-4e97-ab3e-a540cf7224f1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. Other consciousnesses. That you cannot even imagine.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 22:45:45 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> When you "take mushrooms", what happens is for your consciousness to 
>> interact with the other consciousnesses.
>>
>
> What other consciousnesses?  What specifically happens when someone "takes 
> mushrooms" for the first time that leads them to have a quality of 
> consciousness that is unlike anything they've experienced before that?  How 
> do you explain that particular scenario in terms of interactions with other 
> self-referencing entities? 
>
> And, how does that explanation dispense with the idea that the (apparent) 
> ingesting of mushrooms caused the change in consciousness?
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 1:14 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Terren. "Mushrooms" are just an appearance in your consciousness that 
>> stand for other consciousnesses. When you "take mushrooms", what happens is 
>> for your consciousness to interact with the other consciousnesses. Also 
>> "internet" is a similar appearance in your consciousness. And when you 
>> "enter the internet", your consciousness changes from interacting with 
>> other consciousnesses.
>>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:02:48 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> So you're saying if I take a high dose of magic mushrooms and my 
>>> consciousness changes, it is so obvious that a 5yo kid would understand it, 
>>> that the mushrooms *do not* cause a change to my consciousness?  That 
>>> me taking mushrooms an hour before the changes to my consciousness begin is 
>>> mere correlation?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Terren. Based on your logic, if when you get outside in the rain is 
>>>> cold and when you are inside the house is warm => house generates 
>>>> consciousness. Correlation is not causation. This even a 5-years old kid 
>>>> understands.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 17:39:34 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:01 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Quentin @Stathis. That's where the whole magical belief in AI comes 
>>>>>> from, from believing that you are robots. Well.. breaking news: you are 
>>>>>> not! You are God. "Brain" is just a picture that you as God dreams in 
>>>>>> this 
>>>>>> dream. It doesn't actually exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe so. But if it is true that our brains are just part of the 
>>>>> dream, then how do you account for the seeming one-way causality between 
>>>>> the brain and the mind?  Brain damage, drugs, transcranial magnetic 
>>>>> stimulation, etc, all give credence to the existence of the brain, and by 
>>>>> the same token all those examples are difficult to explain from the 
>>>>> idealist perspective you're advocating for.  
>>>>>
>>>>> You can say that's all part of the dream, but that's an answer that 
>>>>> stops all further questions. The "hard problem" of idealism is: why does 
>>>>> the dream of God appear to be so lawful and ordered?  Why does the dream 
>>>>> necessitate things like brains that appear to have causal influence on 
>>>>> our 
>>>>> consciousness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Terren
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:24:45 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 18:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic 
>>>>>>>> instructions such as 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (color == white) {
>>>>>>>>print ("Is day");
>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>print ("Is night");
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>

Re: Absolute freedom of speech group for consciousness discussions

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. I'm sorry for your suffering. Hope you will find a girlfriend soon.

On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 02:40:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> Your interactions here are a preview of what discourse on your google 
> group would be like. And there's a lot of words to describe that, but 
> "inviting" isn't one of them. 
>
> Terren
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:46 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I invite you to my absolute freedom of speech google group for 
>> consciousness discussions: 
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/consciousness-research
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1205111-40d6-48b6-8e08-5f6215b518fcn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1205111-40d6-48b6-8e08-5f6215b518fcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58fc66a5-39f6-4e90-9d13-ac718664ee00n%40googlegroups.com.

Absolute freedom of speech group for consciousness discussions

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I invite you to my absolute freedom of speech google group for 
consciousness discussions: 

https://groups.google.com/g/consciousness-research

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1205111-40d6-48b6-8e08-5f6215b518fcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 20:47:44 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 02:12, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:18 AM Stathis Papaioannou  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 00:34, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>


 On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 10:16 AM Stathis Papaioannou  
 wrote:

>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 22:15, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 04:23, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:14 PM John Clark  
 wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jason Resch  
> wrote:
>
> *>>> ** I think such foresight is a necessary component of 
 intelligence, not a "byproduct".*
>>>
>>>
>>> >>I agree, I can detect the existence of foresight in others 
>>> and so can natural selection, and that's why we have it.  It aids 
>>> in 
>>> getting our genes transferred into the next generation. But I was 
>>> talking 
>>> about consciousness not foresight, and regardless of how important 
>>> we 
>>> personally think consciousness is, from evolution's point of 
>>> view it's utterly useless, and yet we have it, or at least I have 
>>> it. 
>>>
>>
>> *> you don't seem to think zombies are logically possible,*
>>
>
> Zombies are possible, it's philosophical zombies, a.k.a. smart 
> zombies, that are impossible because it's a brute fact that 
> consciousness 
> is the way data behaves when it is being processed intelligently, 
> or at least that's what I think. Unless you believe that all 
> iterated sequences of "why" or "how" questions go on forever then 
> you must believe that brute facts exist; and I can't think of a 
> better 
> candidate for one than consciousness.
>
> *> so then epiphenomenalism is false*
>>
>
> According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
> "*Epiphenomenalism 
> is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental 
> states or 
> events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do 
> not 
> themselves cause anything*". If that is the definition then I 
> believe in Epiphenomenalism.
>

 If you believe mental states do not cause anything, then you 
 believe philosophical zombies are logically possible (since we could 
 remove 
 consciousness without altering behavior).

>>>  
>>> Mental states could be necessarily tied to physical states without 
>>> having any separate causal efficacy, and zombies would not be logically 
>>> possible. Software is necessarily tied to hardware activity: if a 
>>> computer 
>>> runs a particular program, it is not optional that the program is 
>>> implemented. However, the software does not itself have causal 
>>> efficacy, 
>>> causing current to flow in wires and semiconductors and so on: there is 
>>> always a sufficient explanation for such activity in purely physical 
>>> terms.
>>>
>>
>> I don't disagree that there is sufficient explanation in all the 
>> particle movements all following physical laws.
>>
>> But then consider the question, how do we decide what level is in 
>> control? You make the case that we should consider the quantum field 
>> level 
>> in control because everything is ultimately reducible to it.
>>
>> But I don't think that's the best metric for deciding whether it's in 
>> control or not. Do the molecules in the brain tell neurons what do, or 
>> do 
>> neurons tell molecules what to do (e.g. when they fire)? Or is it some 
>> mutually conditioned relationship?
>>
>> Do neurons fire on their own and tell brains what to do, or do 
>> neurons only fire when other neurons of the whole brain stimulate them 
>> appropriately so they have to fire? Or is it again, another case of 
>> mutualism?
>>
>> When two people are discussing ideas, are the ideas determining how 
>> each brain thinks and responds, or are the brains determining the ideas 
>> by 
>> virtue of generating the words through which they are expressed?
>>
>> Through in each of these cases, we can always drop a layer and 
>> explain all the events at that layer, that is not (in my view) enough of 
>> a 
>> reason to argue that the events at that layer are "in charge.

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Quentin. Trololol. Do you think I care if you read my papers or not ? 
= Is not my problem that you want to remain ignorant. I did 
my part in providing knowledge to people. Now is people job if they want to 
find the truth or not. Stop thinking yourself important.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 20:34:19 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> What a tool you are... and you're seriously expecting people to read your 
> paper ? Learn humility and come back.
>
> Le mar. 9 juil. 2024, 19:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
>
>> @Jason. Omggg... I'm a genius. I studied everything. Computer science, 
>> physics, philosophy, economy, sociology, biology, you name it, lol.
>> I use self-reference in the proper way. The reason people are confused is 
>> because of their own low IQ that even confuses them when it comes to tying 
>> their own shoes.
>>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:27:15 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:50 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Jason. Recursion is not self-reference. If you would have read my 
>>>> paper you would have seen that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You alluded to a familiarity with computer programming. Have you studied 
>>> computer science?
>>>
>>> Is the classical way the Fibonacci sequence is defined not an example of 
>>> self-reference as you use the term? If it's not, then you are using 
>>> "self-reference" in a very non-standard that is sure to confuse a lot of 
>>> people, especially computer scientists.
>>>
>>> Jason 
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:42:42 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:04 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic 
>>>>>> instructions such as 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (color == white) {
>>>>>>print ("Is day");
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>print ("Is night");
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This was an objection first made by Ada Lovelace. But Turing showed 
>>>>> that even deterministic processes can often surprise us, and behave in 
>>>>> ways 
>>>>> that aren't predictable (without running the computation until it 
>>>>> finishes). E.g., does a machine halt or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I give you the program, can you tell me from looking at it what it 
>>>>> will do? You might think you can, but consider if I gave you a program 
>>>>> that 
>>>>> looked for a counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture. If and when it 
>>>>> finds 
>>>>> it, the program prints it and then halts. Does the machine given this 
>>>>> program halt or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> You might have an opinion, but if you can't prove it, then you really 
>>>>> don't know. So far no one has been able to prove it one way or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do 
>>>>>> people that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical 
>>>>>> entities 
>>>>>> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Turing machine and (computability generally) is built on the 
>>>>> notion of recursion. I.e. self-reference. If we are conscious due to 
>>>>> self-reference, then why shouldn't recursive computer programs be 
>>>>> conscious 
>>>>> too?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 06:19:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How has your understanding of computer programming helped you avoid 
>>>>>>> being victimized by AI hype?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:19 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Jason. Omggg... I'm a genius. I studied everything. Computer science, 
physics, philosophy, economy, sociology, biology, you name it, lol.
I use self-reference in the proper way. The reason people are confused is 
because of their own low IQ that even confuses them when it comes to tying 
their own shoes.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:27:15 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:50 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Jason. Recursion is not self-reference. If you would have read my paper 
>> you would have seen that.
>>
>
> You alluded to a familiarity with computer programming. Have you studied 
> computer science?
>
> Is the classical way the Fibonacci sequence is defined not an example of 
> self-reference as you use the term? If it's not, then you are using 
> "self-reference" in a very non-standard that is sure to confuse a lot of 
> people, especially computer scientists.
>
> Jason 
>
>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:42:42 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:04 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic 
>>>> instructions such as 
>>>>
>>>> if (color == white) {
>>>>print ("Is day");
>>>> } else {
>>>>print ("Is night");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> This was an objection first made by Ada Lovelace. But Turing showed that 
>>> even deterministic processes can often surprise us, and behave in ways that 
>>> aren't predictable (without running the computation until it finishes). 
>>> E.g., does a machine halt or not?
>>>
>>> If I give you the program, can you tell me from looking at it what it 
>>> will do? You might think you can, but consider if I gave you a program that 
>>> looked for a counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture. If and when it finds 
>>> it, the program prints it and then halts. Does the machine given this 
>>> program halt or not?
>>>
>>> You might have an opinion, but if you can't prove it, then you really 
>>> don't know. So far no one has been able to prove it one way or the other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do 
>>>> people that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical entities 
>>>> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Turing machine and (computability generally) is built on the notion 
>>> of recursion. I.e. self-reference. If we are conscious due to 
>>> self-reference, then why shouldn't recursive computer programs be conscious 
>>> too?
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason 
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 06:19:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How has your understanding of computer programming helped you avoid 
>>>>> being victimized by AI hype?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:19 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People that are victims of the AI hype neither understand computer 
>>>>>> programming nor consciousness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d095509d-00c5-4693-ae91-af4732e231can%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d095509d-00c5-4693-ae91-af4732e231can%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 everything-li...@

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. "Mushrooms" are just an appearance in your consciousness that 
stand for other consciousnesses. When you "take mushrooms", what happens is 
for your consciousness to interact with the other consciousnesses. Also 
"internet" is a similar appearance in your consciousness. And when you 
"enter the internet", your consciousness changes from interacting with 
other consciousnesses.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:02:48 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> So you're saying if I take a high dose of magic mushrooms and my 
> consciousness changes, it is so obvious that a 5yo kid would understand it, 
> that the mushrooms *do not* cause a change to my consciousness?  That me 
> taking mushrooms an hour before the changes to my consciousness begin is 
> mere correlation?
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Terren. Based on your logic, if when you get outside in the rain is cold 
>> and when you are inside the house is warm => house generates consciousness. 
>> Correlation is not causation. This even a 5-years old kid understands.
>>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 17:39:34 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:01 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Quentin @Stathis. That's where the whole magical belief in AI comes 
>>>> from, from believing that you are robots. Well.. breaking news: you are 
>>>> not! You are God. "Brain" is just a picture that you as God dreams in this 
>>>> dream. It doesn't actually exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe so. But if it is true that our brains are just part of the dream, 
>>> then how do you account for the seeming one-way causality between the brain 
>>> and the mind?  Brain damage, drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulation, etc, 
>>> all give credence to the existence of the brain, and by the same token all 
>>> those examples are difficult to explain from the idealist perspective 
>>> you're advocating for.  
>>>
>>> You can say that's all part of the dream, but that's an answer that 
>>> stops all further questions. The "hard problem" of idealism is: why does 
>>> the dream of God appear to be so lawful and ordered?  Why does the dream 
>>> necessitate things like brains that appear to have causal influence on our 
>>> consciousness?
>>>
>>> Terren
>>>  
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:24:45 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 18:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic 
>>>>>> instructions such as 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (color == white) {
>>>>>>print ("Is day");
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>print ("Is night");
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do 
>>>>>> people that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical 
>>>>>> entities 
>>>>>> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what humans do also: their brains follow deterministic rules, 
>>>>> and it results in the complex behaviour that we see. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19faaf74-251d-4e42-9ce6-a1d6d6208fc4n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19faaf74-251d-4e42-9ce6-a1d6d6208fc4n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9227a08e-4c12-498c-936e-33a2f5c6c38en%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9227a08e-4c12-498c-936e-33a2f5c6c38en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b94c0291-333e-46cf-9f40-d5bb132415cfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Don't you ever get bored of this materialistic mumbo-jumbo ? When will you 
finally understand that brain doesn't exist ?

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 18:18:35 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 00:34, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 10:16 AM Stathis Papaioannou  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 22:15, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>


 On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou  
 wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 04:23, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:14 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jason Resch  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *>>> ** I think such foresight is a necessary component of 
>> intelligence, not a "byproduct".*
>
>
> >>I agree, I can detect the existence of foresight in others and 
> so can natural selection, and that's why we have it.  It aids in 
> getting 
> our genes transferred into the next generation. But I was talking 
> about 
> consciousness not foresight, and regardless of how important we 
> personally 
> think consciousness is, from evolution's point of view it's 
> utterly useless, and yet we have it, or at least I have it. 
>

 *> you don't seem to think zombies are logically possible,*

>>>
>>> Zombies are possible, it's philosophical zombies, a.k.a. smart 
>>> zombies, that are impossible because it's a brute fact that 
>>> consciousness 
>>> is the way data behaves when it is being processed intelligently, 
>>> or at least that's what I think. Unless you believe that all 
>>> iterated sequences of "why" or "how" questions go on forever then 
>>> you must believe that brute facts exist; and I can't think of a better 
>>> candidate for one than consciousness.
>>>
>>> *> so then epiphenomenalism is false*

>>>
>>> According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "*Epiphenomenalism 
>>> is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental 
>>> states or 
>>> events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not 
>>> themselves cause anything*". If that is the definition then I 
>>> believe in Epiphenomenalism.
>>>
>>
>> If you believe mental states do not cause anything, then you believe 
>> philosophical zombies are logically possible (since we could remove 
>> consciousness without altering behavior).
>>
>  
> Mental states could be necessarily tied to physical states without 
> having any separate causal efficacy, and zombies would not be logically 
> possible. Software is necessarily tied to hardware activity: if a 
> computer 
> runs a particular program, it is not optional that the program is 
> implemented. However, the software does not itself have causal efficacy, 
> causing current to flow in wires and semiconductors and so on: there is 
> always a sufficient explanation for such activity in purely physical 
> terms.
>

 I don't disagree that there is sufficient explanation in all the 
 particle movements all following physical laws.

 But then consider the question, how do we decide what level is in 
 control? You make the case that we should consider the quantum field level 
 in control because everything is ultimately reducible to it.

 But I don't think that's the best metric for deciding whether it's in 
 control or not. Do the molecules in the brain tell neurons what do, or do 
 neurons tell molecules what to do (e.g. when they fire)? Or is it some 
 mutually conditioned relationship?

 Do neurons fire on their own and tell brains what to do, or do neurons 
 only fire when other neurons of the whole brain stimulate them 
 appropriately so they have to fire? Or is it again, another case of 
 mutualism?

 When two people are discussing ideas, are the ideas determining how 
 each brain thinks and responds, or are the brains determining the ideas by 
 virtue of generating the words through which they are expressed?

 Through in each of these cases, we can always drop a layer and explain 
 all the events at that layer, that is not (in my view) enough of a reason 
 to argue that the events at that layer are "in charge." Control 
 structures, 
 such as whole brain regions, or complex computer programs, can involve and 
 be influenced by the actions of billions of separate events and separate 
 parts, and as such, they transcend the behaviors of any single physical 
 particle or physical law. 

 Consider: whether or not a program halts might only be determinable by 
 some rules and proof in a mathematical system,

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. The dream is ordered because it is a statistical effect of 
interacting consciousnesses.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5bd005de-3712-4f54-b9c4-e237d77f6a66n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. Based on your logic, if when you get outside in the rain is cold 
and when you are inside the house is warm => house generates consciousness. 
Correlation is not causation. This even a 5-years old kid understands.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 17:39:34 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:01 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Quentin @Stathis. That's where the whole magical belief in AI comes 
>> from, from believing that you are robots. Well.. breaking news: you are 
>> not! You are God. "Brain" is just a picture that you as God dreams in this 
>> dream. It doesn't actually exist.
>>
>
> Maybe so. But if it is true that our brains are just part of the dream, 
> then how do you account for the seeming one-way causality between the brain 
> and the mind?  Brain damage, drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulation, etc, 
> all give credence to the existence of the brain, and by the same token all 
> those examples are difficult to explain from the idealist perspective 
> you're advocating for.  
>
> You can say that's all part of the dream, but that's an answer that stops 
> all further questions. The "hard problem" of idealism is: why does the 
> dream of God appear to be so lawful and ordered?  Why does the dream 
> necessitate things like brains that appear to have causal influence on our 
> consciousness?
>
> Terren
>  
>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:24:45 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 18:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic 
>>>> instructions such as 
>>>>
>>>> if (color == white) {
>>>>print ("Is day");
>>>> } else {
>>>>print ("Is night");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do 
>>>> people that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical entities 
>>>> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is what humans do also: their brains follow deterministic rules, 
>>> and it results in the complex behaviour that we see. 
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
>> -- 
>>
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19faaf74-251d-4e42-9ce6-a1d6d6208fc4n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19faaf74-251d-4e42-9ce6-a1d6d6208fc4n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9227a08e-4c12-498c-936e-33a2f5c6c38en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Jason. Recursion is not self-reference. If you would have read my paper 
you would have seen that.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:42:42 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:04 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic instructions 
>> such as 
>>
>> if (color == white) {
>>print ("Is day");
>> } else {
>>print ("Is night");
>> }
>>
>
> This was an objection first made by Ada Lovelace. But Turing showed that 
> even deterministic processes can often surprise us, and behave in ways that 
> aren't predictable (without running the computation until it finishes). 
> E.g., does a machine halt or not?
>
> If I give you the program, can you tell me from looking at it what it will 
> do? You might think you can, but consider if I gave you a program that 
> looked for a counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture. If and when it finds 
> it, the program prints it and then halts. Does the machine given this 
> program halt or not?
>
> You might have an opinion, but if you can't prove it, then you really 
> don't know. So far no one has been able to prove it one way or the other.
>
>
>
>
>> There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do 
>> people that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical entities 
>> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>>
>
> The Turing machine and (computability generally) is built on the notion of 
> recursion. I.e. self-reference. If we are conscious due to self-reference, 
> then why shouldn't recursive computer programs be conscious too?
>
>
> Jason 
>
>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 06:19:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> How has your understanding of computer programming helped you avoid 
>>> being victimized by AI hype?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:19 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> People that are victims of the AI hype neither understand computer 
>>>> programming nor consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d095509d-00c5-4693-ae91-af4732e231can%40googlegroups.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d095509d-00c5-4693-ae91-af4732e231can%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15a64042-3008-48ab-b406-94b1ba3f54c0n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15a64042-3008-48ab-b406-94b1ba3f54c0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/497a3e36-53ef-449f-9f65-03873ca22d39n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Physical doesn't exist. "Physical" is just an idea in consciousness.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:33:33 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 04:23, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:14 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
>>> *>>> ** I think such foresight is a necessary component of 
>> intelligence, not a "byproduct".*
>
>
> >>I agree, I can detect the existence of foresight in others and so 
> can natural selection, and that's why we have it.  It aids in getting our 
> genes transferred into the next generation. But I was talking about 
> consciousness not foresight, and regardless of how important we 
> personally 
> think consciousness is, from evolution's point of view it's utterly 
> useless, and yet we have it, or at least I have it. 
>

 *> you don't seem to think zombies are logically possible,*

>>>
>>> Zombies are possible, it's philosophical zombies, a.k.a. smart zombies, 
>>> that are impossible because it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way 
>>> data behaves when it is being processed intelligently, or at least 
>>> that's what I think. Unless you believe that all iterated sequences of 
>>> "why" or "how" questions go on forever then you must believe that brute 
>>> facts exist; and I can't think of a better candidate for one than 
>>> consciousness.
>>>
>>> *> so then epiphenomenalism is false*

>>>
>>> According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "*Epiphenomenalism 
>>> is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states or 
>>> events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not 
>>> themselves cause anything*". If that is the definition then I believe 
>>> in Epiphenomenalism.
>>>
>>
>> If you believe mental states do not cause anything, then you believe 
>> philosophical zombies are logically possible (since we could remove 
>> consciousness without altering behavior).
>>
>  
> Mental states could be necessarily tied to physical states without having 
> any separate causal efficacy, and zombies would not be logically possible. 
> Software is necessarily tied to hardware activity: if a computer runs a 
> particular program, it is not optional that the program is implemented. 
> However, the software does not itself have causal efficacy, causing current 
> to flow in wires and semiconductors and so on: there is always a sufficient 
> explanation for such activity in purely physical terms.
>
> I view mental states as high-level states operating in their own regime of 
>> causality (much like a Java computer program). The java computer program 
>> can run on any platform, regardless of the particular physical nature of 
>> it. It has in a sense isolated itself from the causality of the electrons 
>> and semiconductors, and operates in its own realm of the causality of if 
>> statements, and for loops. Consider this program, for example:
>>
>> [image: twin-prime-program2.png]
>>
>> What causes the program to terminate? Is it the inputs, and the logical 
>> relation of primality, or is it the electrons flowing through the CPU? I 
>> would argue that the higher-level causality, regarding the logical 
>> relations of the inputs to the program logic is just as important. It 
>> determines the physics of things like when the program terminates. At this 
>> level, the microcircuitry is relevant only to its support of the higher 
>> level causal structures, but the program doesn't need to be aware of nor 
>> consider those low-level things. It operates the same regardless.
>>
>> I view consciousness as like that high-level control structure. It 
>> operates within a causal realm where ideas and thoughts have causal 
>> influence and power, and can reach down to the lower level to do things 
>> like trigger nerve impulses.
>>
>>
>> Here is a quote from Roger Sperry, who eloquently describes what I am 
>> speaking of:
>>
>>
>> "I am going to align myself in a counterstand, along with that 
>> approximately 0.1 per cent mentalist minority, in support of a hypothetical 
>> brain model in which consciousness and mental forces generally are given 
>> their due representation as important features in the chain of control. 
>> These appear as active operational forces and dynamic properties that 
>> interact with and upon the physiological machinery. Any model or 
>> description that leaves out conscious forces, according to this view, is 
>> bound to be pretty sadly incomplete and unsatisfactory. The conscious mind 
>> in this scheme, far from being put aside and dispensed with as an 
>> "inconsequential byproduct," "epiphenomenon," or "inner aspect," as is the 
>> customary treatment these days, gets located, instead, front and center, 
>> directly in the midst of the causal interplay of cerebral mechanisms.
>>
>> Mental forces in this particular scheme are put in the driver's seat, as 
>> it were. T

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Quentin. Of course I am a magical entity. I am God. And so are you. We are 
are all one and the same God dreaming infinite dreams.

@Quentin @Stathis. That's where the whole magical belief in AI comes from, 
from believing that you are robots. Well.. breaking news: you are not! You 
are God. "Brain" is just a picture that you as God dreams in this dream. It 
doesn't actually exist.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:24:45 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 18:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic instructions 
>> such as 
>>
>> if (color == white) {
>>print ("Is day");
>> } else {
>>print ("Is night");
>> }
>>
>> There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do 
>> people that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical entities 
>> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>>
>
> This is what humans do also: their brains follow deterministic rules, and 
> it results in the complex behaviour that we see. 
>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19faaf74-251d-4e42-9ce6-a1d6d6208fc4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

So, where is Santa Claus ? Also, does he bring presents to all the children 
in the world in 1 night ? How does he do that ?

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 07:31:46 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 6:38 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> So based on your definition, Santa Claus exists.
>>
>
> I believe everything possible exists.
>
> That is the idea this mail list was created to discuss, after all. (That 
> is why it is called the "everything list")
>
> Jason 
>
>
>
>> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 00:47:28 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 5:17 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brain doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then it exists as an object in consciousness, which is as much as exist 
>>> would mean under idealism. Rather than say things don't exist, I think it 
>>> would be better to redefine what is meant by existence.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, and all objects exist in the mind of God. So "exist" goes back to 
>>> meaning what it has always meant, as Markus Mueller said (roughly): "A 
>>> exists for B, when changing the state of A can change the state of B, and 
>>> vice versa, under certain auxiliary conditions."
>>>
>>>
>>> See my papers, like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": 
>>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> I have, and replied with comments and questions. You, however, dismissed 
>>> them as me not having read your paper.
>>>
>>> Have you seen my paper on how computational observers build the world? 
>>> It reaches a similar conclusion to yours:
>>>
>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/jason-k-resch
>>>
>>> Jason 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Monday 8 July 2024 at 23:35:12 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:04 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:12 PM Jason Resch  
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>Consciousness is a prerequisite of intelligence.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you've got that backwards, intelligence is a prerequisite of 
>>>>>> consciousness. And the possibility of intelligent ACTIONS is a  
>>>>>> prerequisite for Darwinian natural selection to have evolved it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree, but will explain below.
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *> One can be conscious without being intelligent,*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I define intelligence by something capable of intelligent action.
>>>>>
>>>>> Intelligent action requires non random choice: choice informed by 
>>>>> information from the environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having information about the environment (i.e. perceptions) is 
>>>>> consciousness. You cannot have perceptions without there being some 
>>>>> process 
>>>>> or thing to perceive them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore perceptions (i.e. consciousness) is a requirement and 
>>>>> precondition of being able to perform intelligent actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason 
>>>>>
>>>>> The Turing Test is not perfect, it has a lot of flaws, but it's all 
>>>>>> we've got. If something passes the Turing Test then it's intelligent and 
>>>>>> conscious, but if it fails the test then it may or may not be 
>>>>>> intelligent 
>>>>>> and or conscious. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  *You need to have perceptions (of the environment, or the current 
>>>>>>> situation) in order to act intelligently. *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For intelligence to have evolved, and we know for a fact that it has,
>>>>>

Re: AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

lol ? By knowing that all AI does is to follow deterministic instructions 
such as 

if (color == white) {
   print ("Is day");
} else {
   print ("Is night");
}

There is no reason involved. Just blindly following instructions. Do people 
that believe in the AI believe that computers are magical entities where 
fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 06:19:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> How has your understanding of computer programming helped you avoid being 
> victimized by AI hype?
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:19 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> People that are victims of the AI hype neither understand computer 
>> programming nor consciousness.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d095509d-00c5-4693-ae91-af4732e231can%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d095509d-00c5-4693-ae91-af4732e231can%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15a64042-3008-48ab-b406-94b1ba3f54c0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

So based on your definition, Santa Claus exists.

On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 00:47:28 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 5:17 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Brain doesn't exist.
>
>
> Then it exists as an object in consciousness, which is as much as exist 
> would mean under idealism. Rather than say things don't exist, I think it 
> would be better to redefine what is meant by existence.
>
>
> "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>
>
> Sure, and all objects exist in the mind of God. So "exist" goes back to 
> meaning what it has always meant, as Markus Mueller said (roughly): "A 
> exists for B, when changing the state of A can change the state of B, and 
> vice versa, under certain auxiliary conditions."
>
>
> See my papers, like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": 
>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>
>
>>
> I have, and replied with comments and questions. You, however, dismissed 
> them as me not having read your paper.
>
> Have you seen my paper on how computational observers build the world? It 
> reaches a similar conclusion to yours:
>
> https://philpeople.org/profiles/jason-k-resch
>
> Jason 
>
>
>
>> On Monday 8 July 2024 at 23:35:12 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:04 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:12 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *>Consciousness is a prerequisite of intelligence.*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you've got that backwards, intelligence is a prerequisite of 
>>>> consciousness. And the possibility of intelligent ACTIONS is a  
>>>> prerequisite for Darwinian natural selection to have evolved it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree, but will explain below.
>>>
>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> *> One can be conscious without being intelligent,*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> I define intelligence by something capable of intelligent action.
>>>
>>> Intelligent action requires non random choice: choice informed by 
>>> information from the environment.
>>>
>>> Having information about the environment (i.e. perceptions) is 
>>> consciousness. You cannot have perceptions without there being some process 
>>> or thing to perceive them.
>>>
>>> Therefore perceptions (i.e. consciousness) is a requirement and 
>>> precondition of being able to perform intelligent actions.
>>>
>>> Jason 
>>>
>>> The Turing Test is not perfect, it has a lot of flaws, but it's all 
>>>> we've got. If something passes the Turing Test then it's intelligent and 
>>>> conscious, but if it fails the test then it may or may not be intelligent 
>>>> and or conscious. 
>>>>
>>>>  *You need to have perceptions (of the environment, or the current 
>>>>> situation) in order to act intelligently. *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For intelligence to have evolved, and we know for a fact that it has,
>>>>  you not only need to be able to perceive the environment you also 
>>>> need to be able to manipulate it. That's why zebras didn't evolve great 
>>>> intelligence, they have no hands, so a brilliant zebra wouldn't have a 
>>>> great advantage over a dumb zebra, in fact he'd probably be at a 
>>>> disadvantage because a big brain is a great energy hog.  
>>>>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>>>> 339
>>>>
>>>> 3b4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Zjakk5szeMFfZu%3DCYp3FzopZsOOMXW%2Bx7qPH9_pujfg%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Zjakk5szeMFfZu%3DCYp3FzopZsOOMXW%2Bx7qPH9_pujfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5812f096-a4a9-4915-8fee-5b7c810d3609n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5812f096-a4a9-4915-8fee-5b7c810d3609n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6d73d528-f6d0-42be-855f-2bdb76510663n%40googlegroups.com.

AI hype

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

People that are victims of the AI hype neither understand computer 
programming nor consciousness.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d095509d-00c5-4693-ae91-af4732e231can%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [Extropolis] Ilya Sutskever ​says "Superintelligence is within reach​"

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Santa Claus is alive!

On Friday 21 June 2024 at 09:15:17 UTC+3 Giulio Prisco wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:18 PM John Clark  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 1:25 PM Keith Henson  
> wrote:
> >
> >> > It is my opinion that superintelligence is inevitable. Whatever
> >> downsides there are, we can't avoid them. There are expected upsides
> >> as well, so we might as well rush ahead and get them.
> >
>
> I AGREE.
>
> >
> > That is also my opinion. The best thing to do is just get on with it and 
> hope for the best. Who knows we might even survive.
> >
> > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
> > ew4
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2740G60HaHKv7T1ieP-8Hhv_FF%3DS55zHk8qccg_X1mZQ%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8b23d4e5-f243-403e-8dca-5f986ec93ac7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Ray Kurzweil: ‘We are going to expand intelligence a millionfold by 2045

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Yeah, sure. Santa Claus.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4bc4beb2-762c-4327-a5e5-115c25dde5b8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. See my 
papers, like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": 
https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan

On Monday 8 July 2024 at 23:35:12 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:04 PM John Clark  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:12 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>> *>Consciousness is a prerequisite of intelligence.*
>>>
>>
>> I think you've got that backwards, intelligence is a prerequisite of 
>> consciousness. And the possibility of intelligent ACTIONS is a  
>> prerequisite for Darwinian natural selection to have evolved it.
>>
>
> I disagree, but will explain below.
>
>  
>>
>>> *> One can be conscious without being intelligent,*
>>>
>>
>> Sure. 
>>
>
> I define intelligence by something capable of intelligent action.
>
> Intelligent action requires non random choice: choice informed by 
> information from the environment.
>
> Having information about the environment (i.e. perceptions) is 
> consciousness. You cannot have perceptions without there being some process 
> or thing to perceive them.
>
> Therefore perceptions (i.e. consciousness) is a requirement and 
> precondition of being able to perform intelligent actions.
>
> Jason 
>
> The Turing Test is not perfect, it has a lot of flaws, but it's all we've 
>> got. If something passes the Turing Test then it's intelligent and 
>> conscious, but if it fails the test then it may or may not be intelligent 
>> and or conscious. 
>>
>>  *You need to have perceptions (of the environment, or the current 
>>> situation) in order to act intelligently. *
>>
>>
>> For intelligence to have evolved, and we know for a fact that it has, you 
>> not only need to be able to perceive the environment you also need to be 
>> able to manipulate it. That's why zebras didn't evolve great intelligence, 
>> they have no hands, so a brilliant zebra wouldn't have a great advantage 
>> over a dumb zebra, in fact he'd probably be at a disadvantage because a big 
>> brain is a great energy hog.  
>>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> 339
>>
>> 3b4
>>
>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Zjakk5szeMFfZu%3DCYp3FzopZsOOMXW%2Bx7qPH9_pujfg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5812f096-a4a9-4915-8fee-5b7c810d3609n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Not all claims of impossibility can be refuted with the "flying machines" 
argument. Arguments need to be made based on reason, not on robotic plug-in 
of replies.

On Monday 8 July 2024 at 22:00:31 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:42 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> *> Saying computers are coming closer to becoming as smart as humans is 
>> like saying that by climbing a tree you get closer to reaching the Moon. *
>>
>
> Yeah, and this entire Internet thing is just a silly fad. And the same is 
> true for horseless carriages, flying machines and TV.
>
>  
>
>> *>Also, brain doesn't exist.*
>>
>
> Okey-dokey.  
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> kd0
>
>
>
>  
>
>> "
>>
>>> I've heard it said that although computers are coming closer to 
>>> becoming as smart as a human biological brain, when it comes to power 
>>> efficiency Biology has a massive advantage. There are even scare stories 
>>> that in five years AI will be consuming 25% of the USA's entire electrical 
>>> power and just a few years later all of it. Well take a look at this! 
>>>
>>> *AI researchers run AI chatbots at just 13 watts with no performance 
>>> loss — stripping matrix multiplication from LLMs yields massive gains 
>>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/ai-researchers-found-a-way-to-run-llms-at-a-lightbulb-esque-13-watts-with-no-loss-in-performance?utm_term=B0E130A3-FB83-4898-8071-86AA305566E4&lrh=01da63cc3d9f5f0f930e10d41b9099b85b7a15540b7052a555e92e95d694d51a&utm_campaign=2F4928DB-7559-479A-B06E-4801050D48B1&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2B26C867-7AB8-43E7-B01B-D1314D051DE6&utm_source=SmartBrief>*
>>>
>>>
>>> tlt
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50ef0ec9-f08a-49ca-873b-82652e28bad0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Saying computers are coming closer to becoming as smart as humans is like 
saying that by climbing a tree you get closer to reaching the Moon. 
Trololol.
Also, brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. This 
is where the whole confusion about robots reaching us comes from.
For more details see my papers, like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": 
https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan

On Thursday 27 June 2024 at 15:54:09 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> I've heard it said that although computers are coming closer to becoming 
> as smart as a human biological brain, when it comes to power efficiency 
> Biology has a massive advantage. There are even scare stories that in five 
> years AI will be consuming 25% of the USA's entire electrical power and 
> just a few years later all of it. Well take a look at this! 
>
> *AI researchers run AI chatbots at just 13 watts with no performance loss 
> — stripping matrix multiplication from LLMs yields massive gains 
> *
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> tlt
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d5dd226-9209-4ab8-9e30-7d6604845334n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Philosophical zombies are not possible, for the trivial reason that body 
doesn't even exist. "Body" is just an idea in consciousness. See my papers, 
like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": 
https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan

On Monday 8 July 2024 at 21:23:44 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:14 PM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>> *>>> ** I think such foresight is a necessary component of intelligence, 
> not a "byproduct".*


 >>I agree, I can detect the existence of foresight in others and so 
 can natural selection, and that's why we have it.  It aids in getting our 
 genes transferred into the next generation. But I was talking about 
 consciousness not foresight, and regardless of how important we personally 
 think consciousness is, from evolution's point of view it's utterly 
 useless, and yet we have it, or at least I have it. 

>>>
>>> *> you don't seem to think zombies are logically possible,*
>>>
>>
>> Zombies are possible, it's philosophical zombies, a.k.a. smart zombies, 
>> that are impossible because it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way 
>> data behaves when it is being processed intelligently, or at least 
>> that's what I think. Unless you believe that all iterated sequences of 
>> "why" or "how" questions go on forever then you must believe that brute 
>> facts exist; and I can't think of a better candidate for one than 
>> consciousness.
>>
>> *> so then epiphenomenalism is false*
>>>
>>
>> According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "*Epiphenomenalism 
>> is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states or 
>> events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not 
>> themselves cause anything*". If that is the definition then I believe in 
>> Epiphenomenalism.
>>
>
> If you believe mental states do not cause anything, then you believe 
> philosophical zombies are logically possible (since we could remove 
> consciousness without altering behavior).
>
> I view mental states as high-level states operating in their own regime of 
> causality (much like a Java computer program). The java computer program 
> can run on any platform, regardless of the particular physical nature of 
> it. It has in a sense isolated itself from the causality of the electrons 
> and semiconductors, and operates in its own realm of the causality of if 
> statements, and for loops. Consider this program, for example:
>
> [image: twin-prime-program2.png]
>
> What causes the program to terminate? Is it the inputs, and the logical 
> relation of primality, or is it the electrons flowing through the CPU? I 
> would argue that the higher-level causality, regarding the logical 
> relations of the inputs to the program logic is just as important. It 
> determines the physics of things like when the program terminates. At this 
> level, the microcircuitry is relevant only to its support of the higher 
> level causal structures, but the program doesn't need to be aware of nor 
> consider those low-level things. It operates the same regardless.
>
> I view consciousness as like that high-level control structure. It 
> operates within a causal realm where ideas and thoughts have causal 
> influence and power, and can reach down to the lower level to do things 
> like trigger nerve impulses.
>
>
> Here is a quote from Roger Sperry, who eloquently describes what I am 
> speaking of:
>
>
> "I am going to align myself in a counterstand, along with that 
> approximately 0.1 per cent mentalist minority, in support of a hypothetical 
> brain model in which consciousness and mental forces generally are given 
> their due representation as important features in the chain of control. 
> These appear as active operational forces and dynamic properties that 
> interact with and upon the physiological machinery. Any model or 
> description that leaves out conscious forces, according to this view, is 
> bound to be pretty sadly incomplete and unsatisfactory. The conscious mind 
> in this scheme, far from being put aside and dispensed with as an 
> "inconsequential byproduct," "epiphenomenon," or "inner aspect," as is the 
> customary treatment these days, gets located, instead, front and center, 
> directly in the midst of the causal interplay of cerebral mechanisms.
>
> Mental forces in this particular scheme are put in the driver's seat, as 
> it were. They give the orders and they push and haul around the physiology 
> and physicochemical processes as much as or more than the latter control 
> them. This is a scheme that puts mind back in its old post, over matter, in 
> a sense-not under, outside, or beside it. It's a scheme that idealizes 
> ideas and ideals over physico-chemical interactions, nerve impulse 
> traffic-or DNA. It's a brain model in which conscious, mental, psychic 
> forces are recognized to be the crowning achievement of some five hundre

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@John. If you would have actually read the paper, you would have seen that 
solipsism is not true.

In order to make things simpler, I will only reply to people that actually 
read the paper and are truly interested in discussing the ideas. Otherwise 
is just waste of time. And if you have time to waste your life, well I 
don't have time to waste my life.

On Thursday 27 June 2024 at 15:10:37 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:18 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Correctly, self-reference cannot be spoken of. But even saying 
>> “self-reference cannot be spoken of” is an utterance about it, so not even 
>> such a sentence can be uttered.
>>
>
> Very clearly the above statement is false because "I" am capable of 
> uttering the word "I" and "I" I am even capable of uttering an entire 
> self-referential sentence such as "I am hungry" that "my" fellow human 
> beings do not seem to find to be incoherent wordplay. Yes, self reference 
> is capable of producing logical paradoxes, but it can also produce 
> statements that are paradox free and extremely useful.  I don't believe 
> human language would even be possible if self reference was removed from 
> it. Getting rid of self reference entirely is throwing out the baby with 
> the bathwater.
>  
>>
>> *> Some might wonder, if we cannot speak about it, why are we sure that 
>> it is the one that brings consciousness into existence. The reason we can 
>> do this is because we observe the phenomenology of qualia*
>>
>
> We? I know from direct experience (which outranks everything, even the 
> scientific method) that I am conscious and capable of observing the 
> phenomenon of qualia and I have no need of an axiom to do so, but I 
> cannot do the same thing with regard to you or to any third party. However 
> I simply could not function if I really believed that solipsism was true 
> and I was the only conscious being in the universe, therefore I have no 
> choice but to take it as an axiom that I can correctly deduce the existence 
> of consciousness in something other than myself by observing intelligent 
> behavior. In other words, it is a brute fact that consciousness is the 
> way data feels when it is being processed *intelligently.*
>  
>
>> *> (like inclusion and transcendence of levels) and conclude that this is 
>> possible only if some entity that we call “self-reference” must “exist”." * 
>> "
>>
>
> It's easy to show with ironclad logic that if consciousness exists then 
> that consciousness is capable of using self reference, but it's impossible 
> to prove if self reference exists then consciousness exists unless 
> additional axioms are used.  
>
>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> cwz
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b5302227-e6af-4029-8d57-630d1099eec3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@John. As I say in the paper:

" "Correctly, self-reference cannot be spoken of.
But even saying “self-reference cannot be spoken of” is an utterance about 
it, so not even such a
sentence can be uttered. Even naming it is faulty. Not even saying 
“self-reference” is correct. Is a
very peculiar states of affairs. On the one hand, we cannot speak about it, 
on the other hand, this
“entity” (wrong again, because not being spokeable-about, we cannot call it 
“entity” either) is
responsible for bringing consciousness into existence. Some might wonder, 
if we cannot speak
about it, why are we sure that it is the one that brings consciousness into 
existence. The reason
we can do this is because we observe the phenomenology of qualia (like 
inclusion and
transcendence of levels) and conclude that this is possible only if some 
entity that we call “self-reference”
must “exist”." "

On Wednesday 26 June 2024 at 22:17:10 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:01 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> *> Self-reference on the other hand, is a 1st person entity 
>> all-throughout. It is not a 3rd person entity like “sentence”*
>
>
> "Every rule has an exception" does not contain the word "sentence ", and 
> although it is not JUST talking about itself it is nevertheless clearly 
> talking about itself because it is a rule. And I don't see anything 
> incoherent in that.   
>
> And if language is incapable of talking about self reference without 
> becoming "incoherent wordplay" as you claim, then how were you able to 
> write an entire paper about self reference without it becoming "incoherent 
> wordplay"?  
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> e4r
>
>
>  
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c0f83300-7483-4a4c-9203-eeabe35aa07en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. You clearly don't know to use the computer. For example, mouse has 
a wheel. If you use that wheel, page moves. When page moves, new things 
appear in the page. Like for example part 2 of the paper. Also, in case 
your mouse doesn't have a wheel, there is also a scrollbar on the right 
side of the window. If you click on that scrollbar and keep the click 
pressed, you can then move the scrollbar up and down. By moving the 
scrollbar up and down, new things appear in the page. Like for example part 
2 of the paper.

Also, the fact that you call it "speculative", only shows that you are full 
of hatred and are unwilling to engage. Then your presence is pointless on 
this topic. Why are you here ? To freely hate on people ? Pathetic.

On Wednesday 26 June 2024 at 15:51:48 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> That paragraph is not in the paper you posted (here 
> <https://philpapers.org/archive/VISHSB.pdf>)
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:25 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Some might wonder, if we cannot speak
>> about it, why are we sure that it is the one that brings consciousness 
>> into existence. The reason
>> we can do this is because we observe the phenomenology of qualia (like 
>> inclusion and
>> transcendence of levels) and conclude that this is possible only if some 
>> entity that we call “self-reference”
>> must “exist”."
>>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "inclusion" or "transcendance of levels", so 
> it's not clear why self-reference must exist for qualia. 
>  
>
>> I understand that we live in an age where attention span has been reduced 
>> to 5 seconds. Nothing wrong with that. But if that is your attention span, 
>> then you should employ it for tik-tok videos. Other subjects require a 
>> different attention span.
>>
>
> That's just unnecessary. At least I'm engaging with your paper. And, for 
> what it's worth, I'm busy. Having something like Claude that can summarize 
> 17 pages of speculative philosophy is the only way I was going to do that. 
>
> Terren
>   
>
>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 21:32:24 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> From your paper, you define self-reference as: "Let self-reference be 
>>> the entity with the property of looking-back-at-itself."
>>>
>>> Your definition invokes the concepts *entity*, *property*, 
>>> *looking-back*, and *itself*. That's a lot of complexity for something 
>>> that is fundamental.  It's easy for me to imagine *entities *with 
>>> different *properties* (i.e. that don't *look-back-on-itself), *but 
>>> only because I'm starting from a linguistic perspective that already 
>>> defines *entities *and *properties, *and *looking-back-at-itself.* You 
>>> don't have that luxury. If you want to derive everything from a monism, you 
>>> cannot define that monism in terms of concepts imported from a different 
>>> metaphysics or conceptual framework. *Entities *and *properties of 
>>> looking-back-at-itself *must be defined relative to your fundamental 
>>> monism.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:04 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Terren. There is no "self" and "ability to reference". There is just 
>>>> self-reference. You can call it hampty-dampty if you want.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 20:01:24 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I read enough to confirm that you postulate self-reference as 
>>>>> fundamental - the entity upon which everything else can be built. I'm 
>>>>> wondering how that can be fundamental if it requires two components 
>>>>> (self, 
>>>>> and the ability to reference).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:32 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The proper understanding happens by reading the paper, not by using 
>>>>>> hallucinatory objects to give you a devoid of meaning shortcut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 16:42:11 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used Claude Sonnet to summarize your paper. Tell me if any of this 
>>>>>>> misses the mark, but the paper appears to posit *self-reference* as 
>>&

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. That's why is crucial to fully read the papers. By reading the 
papers, you will come across paragraphs like this:

"Correctly, self-reference cannot be spoken of.
But even saying “self-reference cannot be spoken of” is an utterance about 
it, so not even such a
sentence can be uttered. Even naming it is faulty. Not even saying 
“self-reference” is correct. Is a
very peculiar states of affairs. On the one hand, we cannot speak about it, 
on the other hand, this
“entity” (wrong again, because not being spokeable-about, we cannot call it 
“entity” either) is
responsible for bringing consciousness into existence. Some might wonder, 
if we cannot speak
about it, why are we sure that it is the one that brings consciousness into 
existence. The reason
we can do this is because we observe the phenomenology of qualia (like 
inclusion and
transcendence of levels) and conclude that this is possible only if some 
entity that we call “self-reference”
must “exist”."

I understand that we live in an age where attention span has been reduced 
to 5 seconds. Nothing wrong with that. But if that is your attention span, 
then you should employ it for tik-tok videos. Other subjects require a 
different attention span.

On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 21:32:24 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> From your paper, you define self-reference as: "Let self-reference be the 
> entity with the property of looking-back-at-itself."
>
> Your definition invokes the concepts *entity*, *property*, *looking-back*, 
> and *itself*. That's a lot of complexity for something that is 
> fundamental.  It's easy for me to imagine *entities *with different 
> *properties* (i.e. that don't *look-back-on-itself), *but only because 
> I'm starting from a linguistic perspective that already defines *entities 
> *and *properties, *and *looking-back-at-itself.* You don't have that 
> luxury. If you want to derive everything from a monism, you cannot define 
> that monism in terms of concepts imported from a different metaphysics or 
> conceptual framework. *Entities *and *properties of 
> looking-back-at-itself *must be defined relative to your fundamental 
> monism.
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:04 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Terren. There is no "self" and "ability to reference". There is just 
>> self-reference. You can call it hampty-dampty if you want.
>>
>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 20:01:24 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> I read enough to confirm that you postulate self-reference as 
>>> fundamental - the entity upon which everything else can be built. I'm 
>>> wondering how that can be fundamental if it requires two components (self, 
>>> and the ability to reference).
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:32 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The proper understanding happens by reading the paper, not by using 
>>>> hallucinatory objects to give you a devoid of meaning shortcut.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 16:42:11 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I used Claude Sonnet to summarize your paper. Tell me if any of this 
>>>>> misses the mark, but the paper appears to posit *self-reference* as 
>>>>> fundamental, upon which all other aspects of reality are derived. 
>>>>>
>>>>> If so (this is me now), my first thought is that self-reference cannot 
>>>>> be fundamental, because it already presupposes two distinct components: a 
>>>>> "self" and the capacity to "reference". Worse, defining "self" (something 
>>>>> to be derived) in terms of "self-reference" (fundamental) is circular. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Terren
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the 
>>>>>> World" which is the theory of everything that people searched for 
>>>>>> millennia. It can be found on my philpeople profile:
>>>>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails 

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Jason. Let's make it as clear as possible: Sentence doesn't exist. 
"Sentence" is just an idea in consciousness. More examples:
Physical doesn't exist. "Physical" is just an idea in consciousness.
Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
Santa Claus doesn't exist. "Santa Claus" is just an idea in consciousness.
etc.
So we can be sure we avoid in the future any talks about non-existent 
entities.

On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 21:06:30 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:01 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> @Jason. You say:
>>
>> ""Every rule has an exception"
>> This is a self referential sentence"
>>
>> But from my paper:
>>
>> "In “This sentence is false”, a 3rd person “sentence” is imagined to 
>> exist, and to that imagined
>> “sentence”, the property of “is false” is added, and a weird combination 
>> of 3rd person entity “This
>> sentence is false” masquerading as 1st person entity is created, and from 
>> this the apparent
>> paradox, which ultimately is nothing but an incoherent worlds-play, 
>> appears. Self-reference on
>> the other hand, is a 1st person entity all-throughout. It is not a 3rd 
>> person entity like “sentence”
>> that we can point outside of ourselves and to which we can add 
>> properties. Self-reference is itself
>> and is for itself. Its “looking-back-at-itself” happens from the inside. 
>> Because of this, the paradox
>> doesn’t take place as it happens for “This sentence is false” and any 
>> other words-play that can be
>> made at the 3rd person, including Russell’s paradox."
>>
>> So how can you claim you read it, when I say clearly in the paper that 
>> such "self-referential sentences" are just incoherent words-play ?
>>
>
> "The sentence is a lie" may be incoherent word play. But if there are any 
> self-existing absolute truths, they must consist in truths whose denial 
> leads to inconsistency. I think the sentence you gave as an example of 
> incoherent word play is just an example of inconsistency. It is different 
> from the example I provided, which I intended to show leads to an absolute 
> truth: the existence of rules that have no exceptions. If such absolute 
> truths exists then the idea of an absolute nothing (devoid of even truths 
> and relations) cannot be.
>
> Jason
>  
>
>>
>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 20:48:56 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:54 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When will that day come when people actually first read the papers and 
>>>> then comment ? Oh, God!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I read your paper. I am sorry if you did not find my comments or 
>>> references helpful.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>  
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 19:18:25 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the 
>>>>>> World" which is the theory of everything that people searched for 
>>>>>> millennia. It can be found on my philpeople profile:
>>>>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Cosmin,
>>>>>
>>>>> Very nice, and very original work.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few comments and questions, written as they occurred to me:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of self reference being larger and smaller than itself made 
>>>>> me think of how the universe can be thought of as much larger than us, 
>>>>> but 
>>>>> all our thoughts and ideas about the universe are contained within our 
>>>>> skulls. I am not sure if this is an example of the kind of paradox of 
>>>>> self 
>>>>> reference that you describe but I thought I would ask.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your bootstrapping of nothing into something via self reference made 
>>>>> me think of the following example. Start with the sentence:
>>>>>

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Terren. There is no "self" and "ability to reference". There is just 
self-reference. You can call it hampty-dampty if you want.

On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 20:01:24 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> I read enough to confirm that you postulate self-reference as fundamental 
> - the entity upon which everything else can be built. I'm wondering how 
> that can be fundamental if it requires two components (self, and the 
> ability to reference).
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:32 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> The proper understanding happens by reading the paper, not by using 
>> hallucinatory objects to give you a devoid of meaning shortcut.
>>
>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 16:42:11 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>> I used Claude Sonnet to summarize your paper. Tell me if any of this 
>>> misses the mark, but the paper appears to posit *self-reference* as 
>>> fundamental, upon which all other aspects of reality are derived. 
>>>
>>> If so (this is me now), my first thought is that self-reference cannot 
>>> be fundamental, because it already presupposes two distinct components: a 
>>> "self" and the capacity to "reference". Worse, defining "self" (something 
>>> to be derived) in terms of "self-reference" (fundamental) is circular. 
>>>
>>> Terren
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" 
>>>> which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It 
>>>> can be found on my philpeople profile:
>>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f13128c-5b63-422f-a6cb-4c3eb4f3618cn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>  
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f13128c-5b63-422f-a6cb-4c3eb4f3618cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea01c75c-3cdd-4d9e-9ced-eb184ae03777n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea01c75c-3cdd-4d9e-9ced-eb184ae03777n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d91bb4ab-d34c-4508-9fa8-7278599ff78en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Jason. You say:

""Every rule has an exception"
This is a self referential sentence"

But from my paper:

"In “This sentence is false”, a 3rd person “sentence” is imagined to exist, 
and to that imagined
“sentence”, the property of “is false” is added, and a weird combination of 
3rd person entity “This
sentence is false” masquerading as 1st person entity is created, and from 
this the apparent
paradox, which ultimately is nothing but an incoherent worlds-play, 
appears. Self-reference on
the other hand, is a 1st person entity all-throughout. It is not a 3rd 
person entity like “sentence”
that we can point outside of ourselves and to which we can add properties. 
Self-reference is itself
and is for itself. Its “looking-back-at-itself” happens from the inside. 
Because of this, the paradox
doesn’t take place as it happens for “This sentence is false” and any other 
words-play that can be
made at the 3rd person, including Russell’s paradox."

So how can you claim you read it, when I say clearly in the paper that such 
"self-referential sentences" are just incoherent words-play ?

On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 20:48:56 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:54 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> When will that day come when people actually first read the papers and 
>> then comment ? Oh, God!
>>
>
> I read your paper. I am sorry if you did not find my comments or 
> references helpful.
>
> Jason
>  
>
>>
>> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 19:18:25 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" 
>>>> which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It 
>>>> can be found on my philpeople profile:
>>>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Cosmin,
>>>
>>> Very nice, and very original work.
>>>
>>> A few comments and questions, written as they occurred to me:
>>>
>>>
>>> The idea of self reference being larger and smaller than itself made me 
>>> think of how the universe can be thought of as much larger than us, but all 
>>> our thoughts and ideas about the universe are contained within our skulls. 
>>> I am not sure if this is an example of the kind of paradox of self 
>>> reference that you describe but I thought I would ask.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your bootstrapping of nothing into something via self reference made me 
>>> think of the following example. Start with the sentence:
>>>
>>> "Every rule has an exception"
>>> This is a self referential sentence, which can be either true or false. 
>>> If it is false, then there are rules without exceptions (i.e. laws). If it 
>>> is true, then "every rule has an exception" would also be a rule, and if it 
>>> has an exception, then again we reach the conclusion that there are some 
>>> rules without exceptions (i.e. laws), so this self refuting sentence 
>>> implies a universal truth, the existence of laws.
>>>
>>>
>>> Another comment:
>>> Fractals are objects defined through their self reference, is any 
>>> special attention owed to them? What about numbers such as e? Or steps in a 
>>> recursive computational relation (steps of the evolving game of life 
>>> universe might be conceived of as a recursive function, for example).
>>>
>>>
>>> What would you consider the simplest possible program that had 
>>> consciousness to be? That is, what is the shortest bit of code that would 
>>> manifest consciousness of something (even a single bit)?
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree to that the difficulty of explaining or communicating qualia 
>>> stems from what me might call self-reference islands. Each of us is trapped 
>>> within an isolated context, from which we have qualia of various kinds but 
>>> no common framework established between other minds that enable 
>>> communication beyond this island. Think of the analogous situation of 
>>> people in two different universes or AIs in two different computer 
>>> simulations, trying to define what they mean by a metered or a kilogram. 
>>> These terms are meaningless and incommunicable outside the particular 
>>> universe, since they are terms wholly defined by relationship

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

When will that day come when people actually first read the papers and then 
comment ? Oh, God!

On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 19:18:25 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" 
>> which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It 
>> can be found on my philpeople profile:
>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>
>
> Hi Cosmin,
>
> Very nice, and very original work.
>
> A few comments and questions, written as they occurred to me:
>
>
> The idea of self reference being larger and smaller than itself made me 
> think of how the universe can be thought of as much larger than us, but all 
> our thoughts and ideas about the universe are contained within our skulls. 
> I am not sure if this is an example of the kind of paradox of self 
> reference that you describe but I thought I would ask.
>
>
> Your bootstrapping of nothing into something via self reference made me 
> think of the following example. Start with the sentence:
>
> "Every rule has an exception"
> This is a self referential sentence, which can be either true or false. If 
> it is false, then there are rules without exceptions (i.e. laws). If it is 
> true, then "every rule has an exception" would also be a rule, and if it 
> has an exception, then again we reach the conclusion that there are some 
> rules without exceptions (i.e. laws), so this self refuting sentence 
> implies a universal truth, the existence of laws.
>
>
> Another comment:
> Fractals are objects defined through their self reference, is any special 
> attention owed to them? What about numbers such as e? Or steps in a 
> recursive computational relation (steps of the evolving game of life 
> universe might be conceived of as a recursive function, for example).
>
>
> What would you consider the simplest possible program that had 
> consciousness to be? That is, what is the shortest bit of code that would 
> manifest consciousness of something (even a single bit)?
>
>
> I agree to that the difficulty of explaining or communicating qualia stems 
> from what me might call self-reference islands. Each of us is trapped 
> within an isolated context, from which we have qualia of various kinds but 
> no common framework established between other minds that enable 
> communication beyond this island. Think of the analogous situation of 
> people in two different universes or AIs in two different computer 
> simulations, trying to define what they mean by a metered or a kilogram. 
> These terms are meaningless and incommunicable outside the particular 
> universe, since they are terms wholly defined by relationships that exist 
> only within a particular universe or simulation. There not only can be no 
> agreement on what is meant by those terms, but they aren't even definable 
> (outside the contextual island that exists only within that universe). For 
> we consciousness beings, we each have such a universe of qualia in our own 
> heads, and these are similarly undefinable beyond the context of our inner 
> view.
>
>
>
>
> As for the ontology that results, your work reminded me of these works 
> that contain related ideas (of self-reference, observer-centric, 
> nothing-based means of bootstrapping reality):
>
>
> Bruno Marchal's "The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body 
> problem"
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236138701_The_computationalist_reformulation_of_the_mind-body_problem
>
>
> Mark F. Sharlow's "Can Machines Have First-Person Properties?"
> https://archive.is/rDP33
>
>
> Markus Muller's
> "Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic 
> information theory"
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826
>
> David Pearce's "The Zero Ontology"
> https://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm
>
> Stephen Wolfram's "The Concept of the Ruliad"
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/
>
> And Russell Standish's "Theory of Nothing"
> https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
>
> I have written an article which reaches similar conclusions:
>
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/
>
> Note that while I focus more on the mathematics than self-reference, I do 
> see self-reference (in consciousness) as being a key step in the process of 
> realizing an apparent reality, providing a first person localized 
> perspective out of objective mathematical trut

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

The proper understanding happens by reading the paper, not by using 
hallucinatory objects to give you a devoid of meaning shortcut.

On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 16:42:11 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote:

> I used Claude Sonnet to summarize your paper. Tell me if any of this 
> misses the mark, but the paper appears to posit *self-reference* as 
> fundamental, upon which all other aspects of reality are derived. 
>
> If so (this is me now), my first thought is that self-reference cannot be 
> fundamental, because it already presupposes two distinct components: a 
> "self" and the capacity to "reference". Worse, defining "self" (something 
> to be derived) in terms of "self-reference" (fundamental) is circular. 
>
> Terren
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" 
>> which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It 
>> can be found on my philpeople profile:
>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f13128c-5b63-422f-a6cb-4c3eb4f3618cn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f13128c-5b63-422f-a6cb-4c3eb4f3618cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea01c75c-3cdd-4d9e-9ced-eb184ae03777n%40googlegroups.com.

How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

 I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" 
which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It 
can be found on my philpeople profile:
https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f13128c-5b63-422f-a6cb-4c3eb4f3618cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Well... maybe when you are a 50 years old scientist, you can say that, but 
this is not the spirit in which science is teached to children or 
popularized to laymen. The spirit of science popularization is that it 
gives us the truth, and we should obey or die. If scientists are such moral 
people, then why they don't tell to their students in the first class of 
their course that they will only present to them a model ? Instead, they 
jump right in: "Space is such-and-such, time is such-and-such.". I never 
heard any professor of mine telling us that they are only presenting us 
models.

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 19:23:27 UTC+2, Brent wrote:
>
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, 
> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct 
> which, with the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, describes 
> observed phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical construct is 
> solely and precisely that it is  expected to work.
> --—John von Neumann
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0820104a-969a-45d5-989e-36c6ed0e6d29%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Thanks. I'll do.

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 13:21:01 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Read *Being and Nothingness*, Jean Paul Sartre
>
> 691 pages -  
> http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Sartre/BeingAndNothingness.pdf
>
> @philipthrift
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0641f2ad-0fc3-4b73-9615-e05354e1d7b0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What about those people that have the desire to know the truth ? What 
should they do with their lives ?

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 11:39:56 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> To make technology: to go to the moon, to make air conditioning, 
> smartphones, TVs, ...
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/db888340-4f82-4317-9453-c67b9297cec7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Why are we doing this ?

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 10:54:59 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Models are the myths we invent to navigate nature (reality).
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f163065d-e22c-4888-9790-a5b917a9fd9f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Garbage. Cultural mumbo-jumbo.

On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 12:01:14 UTC+2, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d2873c00-b827-4357-baee-922134e35ad5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What are the models the models of if not of truth ? If models are not 
intended to model truth, then what are they intended to do ? Create a 
fantastical world for World of Warcraft ?

On Friday, 15 November 2019 02:03:14 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> But good luck in life finding the absolute truth! Let us know when you 
> find it.
>
> @philipthrift  
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccb001b8-6faa-4ecf-a980-79a39d91c919%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What does wf mean ? 

Otherwise, yes, you are right. The problem is that most people do stuff 
(science or other things) solely for social status. In our culture, to be 
scientist is seen as cool, as a hallmark of intelligence. So stupid people 
in order to compensate, they do what all people do to compensate for 
shortcomings: they put on a mask. So they become scientists, even though 
they don't understand the purpose of science, and then they think of 
themselves as being smart, when in fact they are stupid.

On Friday, 15 November 2019 00:25:16 UTC+2, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after 
> many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute 
> ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the wf. This leads 
> to all kinds of conceptual errors, and ridiculous models and conjectures -- 
> such as MW, particles being in two positions at the same time, radiioactive 
> sources that are simultanously decayed and undecayed, and so forth. The wf 
> gives us information about the state of a system and nothing more. Sorry to 
> disappoint. AG
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af1d4392-959f-40e7-b69c-e6c0cf36b5b5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

That's the question: is it contingent to facts about our brain ? Or is it 
something more fundamental about how consciousness works ? 

On Friday, 15 November 2019 01:52:57 UTC+2, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> What you call the phenomenon of sense disappearance is a contingent fact 
> about our brain. We could imagine a dream in which it happens or a reality 
> in which it doesn't happen. 
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e034de0c-2d95-47eb-8382-e0183ede3593%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

But maybe there is a kind of experience that cannot be simulated in a 
dream, for reasons having to do for example with consciousnesses 
interactions.

On Thursday, 14 November 2019 20:49:28 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> From the perspective of *experiential realism (ER)*
>
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/5Vzj0mFW4KM/_qZECzTTAwAJ
>
> the experience that occurs in a dream *could be the same* as an 
> experience that occurs when awake.
>
> Say the experience is DaCoT = drinking a cup of tea (the feel of the cup, 
> the warmth and taste of the tea).
>
> A tea drinker knows a DaCoT experience when awake. They could have a DaCoT 
> experience in a dream.
>
> (This presumes experiences are real in the sense of ER.)
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 3:50:45 AM UTC-6, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> What would be a sure phenomenon that can help us distinguish between 
>> dreams and "real world" ? Because no matter how illogical a dream world 
>> might be, this doesn't make us realize that we are in a dream. So the 
>> randomness of a dream world is not a phenomenon that can help us 
>> distinguish between dreams and "real world". What I'm thinking that can 
>> help us make the discrimination is the phenomenon of sense disappearance. 
>> If we keep a sense on only 1 stimulus, eventually we will stop perceiving 
>> the stimulus. For example, if we hold our hand on the leg of a girl, at 
>> first it is pleasant, but after a time we will stop feeling anything. We 
>> will have to pet the leg of the girl in order to feel it again. Would such 
>> a phenomenon happen in dreams ? If not, then this would be a distinguishing 
>> hallmark between dreams and "real world". Do you have other ideas ?
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/61cdc800-fda0-4f31-a43a-65a3d522f253%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

When did you have sex last time ? Go get laid to relax and then come back 
here. Internet retards!

On Thursday, 14 November 2019 20:17:21 UTC+2, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
> Generally people who are not able to distinguish between a real conscious 
> state and a dream state need psychiatric therapy. There are people who do 
> have this problem and as a rule they become labelled as having 
> schizophrenia. Such people hear voices and see "other beings" the rest of 
> people do not see. Often schizophrenics self-medicate to escape this 
> affliction and become alcoholics and drug addicts.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33fed1bd-6759-4664-939b-ebb4b50a1c91%40googlegroups.com.

Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What would be a sure phenomenon that can help us distinguish between dreams 
and "real world" ? Because no matter how illogical a dream world might be, 
this doesn't make us realize that we are in a dream. So the randomness of a 
dream world is not a phenomenon that can help us distinguish between dreams 
and "real world". What I'm thinking that can help us make the 
discrimination is the phenomenon of sense disappearance. If we keep a sense 
on only 1 stimulus, eventually we will stop perceiving the stimulus. For 
example, if we hold our hand on the leg of a girl, at first it is pleasant, 
but after a time we will stop feeling anything. We will have to pet the leg 
of the girl in order to feel it again. Would such a phenomenon happen in 
dreams ? If not, then this would be a distinguishing hallmark between 
dreams and "real world". Do you have other ideas ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/43a1559c-2555-469c-a685-94573950b65a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Trololol. Prove that the dragons in your dreams exist!

On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 20:18:45 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 9:25:11 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions 
>> between consciousnesses.
>>
>> On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:25:04 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting 
>>> idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks 
>>> back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.
>>>
>>>
> It is not silly. It is empirical. If you are interested in some sort of 
> firm "mathy" type of proof, then I would suggest the burden is more upon 
> you to prove your case that idealism is true.  I have no particular 
> interest in the subject to begin with, so I put the ball in your court. 
> Prove your case. 
>
> LC
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9155ebb5-cdb2-484a-a3e9-2989c3474d61%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions 
between consciousnesses.

On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:25:04 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
> I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting 
> idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks 
> back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6d72d11d-af82-4a2e-9638-f9774861b753%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Not my consciousness, but consciousness generally.

On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:06:02 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> You posit *consciousness is all there is*.
>
> How do you account for it having a finite existence (bounded by birth to 
> death of an individual)?
>
> With matter, there is an explanation.
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1984505a-6846-4f88-9b96-2e68cbea2e20%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I never understood this "if consciousness is all there is, then it is 
allpowerful". How does that follow ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1a1ee0f-e1c4-4cf1-b4d7-297afe5bf931%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Prove there is something outside consciousness!

On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 03:27:03 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
> Idealism is of course rather silly. The idea that all that exists is 
> consciousness is a "feel good" idea that is utterly preposterous.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c5b2a509-2cdb-410b-8d1f-630f39db0d46%40googlegroups.com.

Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Probably the single big confusion that lead to the creation of materialism 
is the confusion between ontological states and their epistemic content. 
People experienced the ontological state with epistemic content of "chair 
outside me" and they took the epistemic content as representing an 
ontological state of the world, so they thought there really is a "chair 
outside me", when the real ontological state was that of a state of 
consciousness. Therefore, it appears that in order to get rid of 
materialism is to stop making this confusion. The problem that arises is 
that no matter how hard we would try to do that, any retreat from the 
epistemic content of an ontological state will only gives us just another 
ontological state with the only difference being a different epistemic 
content. No matter what, we cannot escape epistemic contents. Is idealism 
therefore fundamentally unthinkable ?

I opened this topic after reading about process philosophy. They say that 
the solution to understanding the world is to not think in terms of 
"substances", but in terms of "events". The problem is that "events" is 
also an epistemic content, in the sense that the concept of "event" is 
extrapolated from the subjective feeling of passage of time. But the 
"passage of time" is just a quality/an epistemic state of consciousness. To 
take it as revealing to us a deep character of the world is to do the same 
mistake materialism is doing. So, in order to avoid the mistake of 
materialism is to recognize this fact, and thus to reject that "event" can 
be anything ontologically meaningful. Is there any way to escape this 
vicious circle of confusions between ontological states and epistemic 
contents and get to an idealistic conception of the world, or is idealism 
fundamentally unthinkable ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b30ad355-dc71-4657-9b44-0e194b7234bf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Sure, but that inter-personal phenomenon derives from the workings of 
consciousness which remains the nature of reality. You don't create 
consciousness out of computations, you create computations out of 
consciousness.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a476874e-ef97-4902-af71-98f3825f2107%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@Brent, is the other way around: consciousness is ontological since it exists, 
and the physical world is epistemic since is only a model.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bc990eda-02e4-4e0b--5d2bfe7b3f41%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

@telmo, same species means same type of consciousness.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2449c1f7-f6ee-4e71-b4f4-ae8c553b5737%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact 
that we are from the same species.

On Monday, 16 September 2019 15:09:20 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
> > "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. 
>
> Perhaps. But so what? Do you agree or not that there is interpersonal 
> communication going on? If you do agree, then how do you explain the common 
> ground between your experience and mine? 
>
> > -- 
> > 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d9b03f4-d9fe-4a14-a80a-d873b9219654%40googlegroups.com.
>  
>
> > 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19f974cc-a4f9-40bd-a387-2e2877f1d15e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d9b03f4-d9fe-4a14-a80a-d873b9219654%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself.

On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:28:11 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> You mean human consciousness or something bigger? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List  >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:39 am
> Subject: Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic
>
> The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in consciousness. 
>
>
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83cd060e-aad2-4f17-ad6a-be72abb4aa08%40googlegroups.com.
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc1035f-25f8-4d60-a5c1-53bf4ff04381%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in consciousness.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83cd060e-aad2-4f17-ad6a-be72abb4aa08%40googlegroups.com.

What can grammar errors teach us about the workings of consciousness ?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

 Sometimes, it happens to us a particular kind of grammar errors. There are 
errors of the type: instead of spelling "light tie" for example, we end up 
spelling "tight lie". It is something peculiar about these kinds of errors, 
they are not random. They are trying to tell us something deep about the 
workings of consciousness. It appears that consciousness is made up of 
parts of certain kind, and sometimes those parts mix up and are unified 
back together into other meaningful wholes. And it appears that this mixing 
up is happening in some kind of temporal non-local manner. In order to 
swith L for T in "light tie", you somehow need to know in advance the T 
will be after L, and switch them and put T before L. And this also has to 
be done such that the new obtained words are also meaningful. This switch 
doesn't generally happen if the new words that are to be obtained don't 
exist. So it is really telling us something important about how 
consciousness works. But I cannot figure it out exactly what. Any ideas ?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/826ebc53-9a52-470e-8629-f9d05129252b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You said a good thing maybe even without realizing it. The "machinary" is 
not a "machinary" at all. Is a system of interacting conscious agents that 
work together to implement mechanical functions.

On Saturday, 27 July 2019 03:34:20 UTC+3, smitra wrote:
>
>
> That's like trying to build a self-driving car by trying to figure out 
> how to burn gasoline. Just because metabolism is of crucial importance 
> to life doesn't mean one can get to life just by getting some of the 
> important metabolic reactions started in some setting. Most of the 
> complexity of life is in the molecular machinery. A microbe considered 
> as a machine is more similar to the set of all factories, companies, 
> managers and politicians of a country than to a single machine. 
>
> Saibal 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09a03943-2cee-4b18-9850-0b065fb74fc0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Quite a strong belief you have within you, young padawan.

On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 23:11:10 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I bet that biology is reducible to physics and the belief, since that is 
> what it is, a belief, is one reason we have missed the boat on the life 
> sciences apparently. We still can' (won't) bring basic physical elements 
> and from this create organisms. My suspicion that since the days or Urey, 
> scientists have backed off why this is not so. Unless we invoke the elan 
> vitale? :-D 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42ddba7d-d7f1-4ec5-bccb-cd9848c34792%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. If your question is "Can anything 
be known without a consciousness knowing it?", then again, consciousness 
can only know itself.

On Monday, 22 July 2019 16:26:17 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.
>>
>
> Can anything be known without a brain knowing it?
>
> @philipthrift 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78acc545-8b49-4e06-bf51-5cec79e14bba%40googlegroups.com.