Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are
not conscious. and intellect and
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are
not conscious. and intellect and
Constantine, this is a rather trollish comment coming from an ignorant
position.
Let me put the following gedanken experiment - consider the
possibility that T. Rex might be either green or blue creatures, and
that either possibility is physically consistent with everything we
know about them. In
On 05 Jul 2011, at 21:48, Pzomby wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:06 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Jul 2011, at 21:55, meekerdb wrote:
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
Russell: Yet the
reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds
Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
IF this is true, then how did you get into the position to know this? How
did you derive a true metanarrative from a confabulation.
IF all that we know and
anyways... I'm reconciled with you guys I'll try not to play nicer yet
remain a critic.
p.s. I'm no mathematician, computer scientist, or physicist I was
schooled in the humanities and avoided mathematics like the plague... so
I will need to ask you guys in the future to translate
But if Bruno is saying that we only have third-person analysis and can't
really account for the first-person perspective or origination or
history/destiny that makes sense.
I believe a lot of people make the error in thinking that science
understands how perception works, how vision and
On 7/6/2011 4:44 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
Constantine, this is a rather trollish comment coming from an ignorant
position.
Let me put the following gedanken experiment - consider the
possibility that T. Rex might be either green or blue creatures, and
that either possibility is physically
Hey Bruno,
Thanks for your comments... I'm a little clearer now on your stance on
consciousness and intelligence, I think. I have a few more questions
and concerns.
Regarding consciousness, my biggest concern is that you're not really
explaining consciousness, so much as describing it. To be
FWIW, I think a smart guy like you can appreciate that some technical
competence is required to be able to truly criticize a technical idea.
I used to hang out on an artificial intelligence forum that was
plagued by a guy who insisted on critiquing AI every chance he got,
but he had never
Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's
consequence are not that original.
Bruno
On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.
On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:36, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything
and know everything we certainly do not.
But would God not know what it is like to be you? To know
Stars are a body. our first-person experience is dependent on a body...
since first there was stars... second there was body, allowing for
first-person experience of stars.
There could be no first-person experience of stars prior to a human form
There could be no first-person experience
I would refer you to the Buddhistic notion of the negation of any ultimate
monadic consciousness whatsoever.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:28 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Stars are a body. our first-person experience is dependent on a body...
since first there was stars... second
On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com
mailto:bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.
Truth/Reality?
nice one!
What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality
The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by
definition),
But we don't know the whole of that which exists and we shouldn't
conceive of the whole of that which exists as external to us our outside
of us, as out their somewhere we are confused and included in the
Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole..
Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes
this whole? what is the enduring aspect or defining characteristic of this
whole?
perhaps this whole is our vague and confused invention or a mere
speculative
I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole..
Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes
this whole? what is
but its hard to abandon this group because this is the only group of super
high-quality thinkers I've actually come across on the net.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING.
On Wed, Jul 6,
On 06.07.2011 05:14 Constantine Pseudonymous said the following:
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter i.e. water,
On 7/6/2011 12:22 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.07.2011 05:14 Constantine Pseudonymous said the following:
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage
Bruno, is it possible that there is no fundamental reality or
primary reality... and even if there was, and it was non-
observational or non-experiential why would it matter to us?
It seems to me that reality or knowledge always implies a blind
dualism that reflects the way in which we (I)
actually the famous physicist famously does play mystic. very incoherently
too.
are you trying to advance argument by authority i.e. famous physicist
believes in classical metaphysics therefore there must be something to it?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
the point is... even if science did support some rudimentary conception of a
gnostic cosmology.
whereof teleology...
it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or Neo-Platonism or
Kaballah or whatever they are all ultimately satisfactory and
incoherent.
So there is no
dis-satisfactory not satisfactory.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
the point is... even if science did support some rudimentary conception of
a gnostic cosmology.
whereof teleology...
it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or
Hi Soroud,
I hope you don't mind I answer in one post.
On 05 Jul 2011, at 21:18, B Soroud wrote:
Bruno, I am not sympathizing with the Neo-Platonist dogmatists.
I am not sympathizing with any dogmatists.
lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.
I have to say that I
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:25:21AM -0700, B Soroud wrote:
Russell: Yet the
reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds
Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
Many people working in cognitive science seem to be in agreement on
this point. For a discussion,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:52:49AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
The question is, when was the colour of the dinosaur established as a
fact? Many of us many worlders would argue it wasn't established
until the photonics measurement was made - there was no 'matter of
fact' about the dinosaur colour
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.comwrote:
Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean
any of it is true.
It's not a matter of true or false, but a matter of opinion whether one
considers the whole of reality to be God or not.
All: Can someone please post a design for an experiment that will test some
of these great theories? As long as the arguments remain theoretical the
obvious limiters are semantics and math--and over the course of the last 137
(!) messages we've seemed to reach both of those walls. It's beginning
If reality = a physical universe
Personally, I don't believe that. Here is the catch, I don't believe its
antithesis or any alternative.
My point is that if we assume mechanism
Unfortunately, since I am new to this... I don't know what you mean by
mechanism.
physical reality emerges from
Russell: an interpretation of the sensory data stream based on
our already constructed theories and beliefs.
To me the notion of sensory data stream is a interpretation of our bare
and naive perception... based on -your- theories and beliefs
I don't believe in the model that says the world
Jason, you have this supposed conception of the whole of reality, when you
utter such words... what appears in your mind?
I would assert: next to nothing.
Can you give us your system that explicates your notion of the whole of
reality
I want to get at your picture of the whole of
On 7/6/2011 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:25:21AM -0700, B Soroud wrote:
Russell: Yet the
reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds
Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
Many people working in cognitive science
34 matches
Mail list logo
