And in any case, the elan vital was
endlessly debate for centuries and was eventually discarded as
nonexistent.
perhaps erroneously... such as perhaps ether was erroneously
discarded. Perhaps many things were erroneously negated Jung talks
of psychic forces it seems like a evocative and
Mathematics is causally inert. Yet it's existence is debatable and
it's
certainly interesting to discuss.
the problem with mathematics is that it lacks potency, in actuality,
in and of itself. Sound exhibits tremendous potency. Do you think of
mathematics as a subset of thought/language?
On Jul
how do you leap from non-doer to non-doing and unconsciousness?
On Jul 3, 10:30 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:32 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
if you are thinking about consciousness, then what else could it have been
but consciousness that
Oh yeah and in response to Bruno's supposed apriori platonic forms... a
doctrine that Plato himself probably didn't believe in. I want to assert
that all mathematics is based on linguistical operations dependent on the
social context of thinking minds and self-constructed extensions/glyphs
On 7/3/2011 10:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:32 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com
mailto:bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
if you are thinking about consciousness, then what else could it
have been but consciousness that caused you to think about it
Are you saying
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/3/2011 10:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:32 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
if you are thinking about consciousness, then what else could it have
been but consciousness that caused you to
Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical
seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless
absurdities
it started with a response to this guys ridiculous assertions: The
very
definition of consciousness: having awareness of ones own thoughts
and
1) More is answered by:
A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds -
Matter) than by
B: Matter - Minds - Math, or
C: Minds - (Matter, Math).
You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise
simultaneously
or that perhaps they are all essentially the same
you also forgot
Natural Math - matter - mind - artificial math (work out any sequence)
you forgot many other sequences and many things we could add to this...
you also assume we understand or know any of these so called entities.
you presuppose to much.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:40 AM,
Don't let Bruno misrepresent Plato as a fanciful sounding idiot
plato was smart, real smart that is why he never had a stable or
definitive theory of forms it was just something he was developing
and playing with in so far as we know and he was the harshest
critic of it.
and if
I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here Bruno is
too, nevertheless he gives me a headache.
even if he was right, I hope hes wrong.
On Jun 5, 11:19 pm, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone watched the movie Contact, in which the structure of the
universe was
the failure of society or civilization is in its attempt to figure
things out... to come up with a coherent, absolutely persuasive and
complete picture-form of things.. rather then to figure out how
to enjoy its existence. it focuses on the probably futile effort
to figure out what
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.comwrote:
the failure of society or civilization is in its attempt to figure
things out... to come up with a coherent, absolutely persuasive and
complete picture-form of things.. rather then to figure out how
to enjoy
New version of summary:
http://www.stationlink.com/docs/Executive_Summary_SEE_TOE_v4.pdf
On Jul 1, 8:44 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I was recommended to check out this group and before I really get
into it, I wanted to post some information about my ideas in their
I'm inclined to agree, although I would not necessarily say that
numbers are self aware so much as they are patterns through which we
articulate our own awareness (which may or may not correspond to
elemental awareness). Think of them as sensorimotive prisms and lenses
which have been purified to
Hi John,
As far as anthropocentricity, I think that it is escapable only
through the anthropocentric notion that we can de-anthropocentricize
our perspective. The world has limitlessness, but it also has
innumerable limits. Our experiences, ideas, logic, etc are limited by
the perception and
On 7/4/2011 1:40 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
1) More is answered by:
A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds -
Matter) than by
B: Matter - Minds - Math, or
C: Minds - (Matter, Math).
You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise
simultaneously
Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little
critique:
1. Explanation is subordinate to description.
2. Description is subordinate to observation.
3. Observation is subordinate to experience.
4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience.
you
On 7/4/2011 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/3/2011 10:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:32 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com
mailto:bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
anytime someone invokes for evolutionary reasons... you know its a
cop-out... that is like invoking God to explain everything... in some
instances it works, its clear, it makes sense but not in all.
rather then for evolutionary reasons... you could equally say for some
reason. Apparently you
Rex: Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good,
maybe
it’s bad.
is not our life essentially on rails i think we should utterly
abolish the notion of any teleology, destination, or end.
there is no end abolish the notion of end in endlessness or in
annihilation,
On 04 Jul 2011, at 20:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/4/2011 1:40 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
1) More is answered by:
A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math -
Minds -
Matter) than by
B: Matter - Minds - Math, or
C: Minds - (Matter, Math).
You forgot to mention the
On 03 Jul 2011, at 23:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/3/2011 11:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com
wrote:
it seems to me that there are certain preconditions that need to be
in
place in order for us to exist, and that
Jason: I can easily prove to
you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything
at
all
It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here.
I thought we did away with these classical metaphysical speculations.
Did you not read Kant?
You may be able to prove
On 04 Jul 2011, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/3/2011 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jul 3, 2011, at 4:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/3/2011 8:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 2:35 AM, selva kumar
selvakr1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011
On 7/4/2011 11:42 AM, B Soroud wrote:
anytime someone invokes for evolutionary reasons... you know its a
cop-out... that is like invoking God to explain everything... in some
instances it works, its clear, it makes sense but not in all.
rather then for evolutionary reasons... you could
Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group...
On Jun 6, 10:16 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
How can any of those questions
On 04 Jul 2011, at 06:37, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
I just realized that for some reason only half of these posts show up
in my e-mail…
Bruno, you speak of self-consciousness… do you mean body-image? Or do
you mean abstract self-recognition? Or the tendency towards false
identification?
Your brain contains information received by the senses, it is a
system
which can enter many different states based on that information
It is so amazing to me how blind people are who actually believe this
clearly ridiculous notion.
information as used by geneticists and brain-scientists is a
On 7/4/2011 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The mathematical science is certainly not causally inert. Without
math, no chips, no internet, no man on the moon, etc.
But the form of argument, Without X we wouldn't have Y, therefore X
caused Y. is invalid. Consider, without space we wouldn't
so there is hearing in the sense of speaking a word out loud. and there is
hearing in the sense of speaking a word in your mind and you think
this inner hearing is. what?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/4/2011 11:42 AM, B Soroud wrote:
lol, Bruno, your fictional Platonic Academy is sublimated Sun worshiping.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Jul 2011, at 06:37, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
I just realized that for some reason only half of these posts show up
in my e-mail…
comp immaterialism: I am dreaming that all numbers are dreaming and
I don't know it.
On Jun 7, 7:32 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote:
I guess you mean some sort of
if reality was known, it wouldn't have to be stated... unless there
was a mis-perception that needed to be corrected hence our theorem
tautologies are evidence that reality is not known otherwise it
would not need to be doubly and secondly stated for assurance and
clarification that is
Hi, Craig (and I still would appreciate your signing the end of your post,
as several of us list-members do - for easier reading)
you sound like e thinking 'mind' (what is mind?) - with limitations of
course (as you implied).
*Wiring?*
I changed the fundamental 'wiring' of my mental pattern
indeed.
there are a) misperceptions b) perceptions c) lack of perceptions d)
impossibility of perception e) pseudo-perceptions.
It is interesting to check out what Penrose is talking about when he
talks about Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in theoretical physics.
Fashion: String Theory
Faith:
Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely
recursive, self-negating, and un-negatable.
1) God is dead
2) God is reborn - as theoretical physics
Brunoism: old wine in new bottles.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
Jason, you say there is still a great deal of
activity within an anestetized mind, yet consciousness is abolished.
when you say consciousness is abolished... we know what you mean,
yet we do not really know what is meant by consciousness is
abolished meaning, we don't know what underlies that
language is the most bewitching and misleading devil in existence...
it produces the illusion of knowledge.
there is a distinction between understanding and knowledge.
On Jun 7, 8:05 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pete Hughes pet...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno says:
But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is
before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to
the
primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is
something
behind our observations.
can this supposed something behind our observations be
it sounds like Bruno is ontologizing mathematics rather then seeing it
as merely a way of knowing or a tool for organizing, classifying,
accounting for, and navigating space-time.
On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote:
it emerges from self-observation by relative universal
numbers.
how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of
human thought?
are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination,
thought, and figures?
On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Jul 2011, at 07:25, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
“It sound more like you are reifing body and system.”
Would you rather me rarefy it?
Worst. I don't give you any choice, *in* the mechanist theory. But I
am talking on primitive bodies. They are so rare that they don't
exist. But
BS,
Glad you asked. Read http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0044 and
http://knol.google.com/k/implications-of-a-conjectured-multiverse-string-theory-in-26-dimensions
#
RR
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:35 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
RR: Part of determining what exists is if a supernatural world
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.comwrote:
Jason: I can easily prove to
you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything
at
all
It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here.
I thought we did away with these
Bruno, damn, this is heavy give me a moment to reply:
you see. I can be very sure that my body exists a 100% sure... but I
can't be sure that anything else exists.
you say: Just now, you can hardlmy doubt you are... you know that you are
conscious. You know that you ...but you know you
I never claimed to know the identity of it.
so then what are you talking about?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason: I can easily prove to
you at least one thing
lol, the pagan confusion in this forum is exactly why the Church
thought it necessary to dogmatically formulate a creed and impose that
rigid and absolute structure on the masses.
otherwise such heathen indeterminacy and inventiveness would continue
ad infinitum.
Neo-platonism was
On 04 Jul 2011, at 10:55, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here Bruno is
too, nevertheless he gives me a headache.
even if he was right, I hope hes wrong.
You make me feel guilty. My defense is that science is not wishful
thinking. The
Rex have you studied Spinoza's notion that freedom is the
recognition of necessity? If you haven't read Spinoza I would
recommend him on this free will/determinism issue.
On Jun 9, 8:00 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal
Bru, I forgot:
At least they do not burn alive non buddhist, or very less often so. What
do you mean where have they gotten?
Sure they don't burn alive non buddhists becaues they've had their head up
their asses for the last several thousand years and finally they were
woken up from their
frankly... I don't believe an artificial brain is possible that is Gods
trick.. God, in so far as he exists, made it that no artificial brain
would ever be possible hence he is God (medieval scholastic logic).
and practically that's how we will expands ourselves in virtual realities
but to say something positive... I like your formulation of religion as
argument by authority.
Religion = argument by authority.
Now there are two forms of spirituality as barely distinguished from
religion: theoretical spirituality and existential spirituality.
Theoretical spirituality as
Yes! perhaps Reason is the ultimate sublimated form of the argument by
authority. and the demonstrable merely regulated to a highly limited and
relatively insubstantial plane.
back to the Sophists! lets throw out the platonic and peripatetic
presuppositions and linguistic forms inherited
Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming
self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable.
something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we
cannot speak
there is some being, but I want to call this being into question.
what asserts or negates its
in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot
claim that I am...
being = 1/0 and 1/0 = -1/-0
in other words when we assert self-existence we effectively assert
something and nothing simultaneously.
so why make such a empty assertion. If it was true you
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical
seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless
absurdities
Ha! Well, we all have our off days...
We can say that
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little
critique:
1. Explanation is subordinate to description.
2. Description is subordinate to observation.
3. Observation is subordinate to
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group...
w00t w00t!
Take that, you other people in this group!!!
Rex
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
REx:
Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful.
what I want to know is when did this term enter our lexicon... the Greeks
didn't use it, nor the Romans…. I don’t recall either Descartes, Spinoza,
Leibniz, Hume… using it….
It must have started with either Kant or Hegel… Hegel
Rex:
I believe that conscious experience exists, fundamentally and uncaused.
You believe monadic current of conscious experience is eternal?
Then why is your awareness or memory of it so fragile and finite?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul
correction... we use to use many words in the absence of consciousness
many words, duads, and triads... consciousness comes from the triad
consciousness/unconsciousness/self-consciousness.
And Rex why do you say conscious experience isn't that redundant?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:18 PM,
When we talk about consciousness we have to be specific about what
mode of consciousness we are referring to there is no
consciousness in and of itself that we are aware of so do we mean
self-consciousness, other-consciousness, dream-consciousness, form-
consciousness or phenomenological
63 matches
Mail list logo
