Re: for Cosmin

> On 22 May 2019, at 10:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Oh, now you say ? So what's the difference ? Arithmetic meant here the model of the arithmetical theories. The model is, to be informal, everything true about the natural numbers and their definable and non

Re: for Cosmin

> On 22 May 2019, at 10:07, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > What determines red to appear ? Deep (long) first person histories occurring from the first person point of view in Arithmetic, on which the consciousness (of the universal numbers) differentiate. “The red qualia”

Re: for Cosmin

Oh, now you say ? So what's the difference ? On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:30:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Arithmetic (not to be confused with human theories about arithmetic) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: for Cosmin

What determines red to appear ? On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:25:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > They appear in a “perceptual semantics” that Bell (the logician, not the > physicist) has proposed for a special quantum logic. They belong to the > logic of the material modes of the self

Re: for Cosmin

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 9:30:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 May 2019, at 12:31, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:13:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I don’t see how, nor why, we could associate experience with matter. Then >> with

Re: for Cosmin

> On 21 May 2019, at 12:31, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:13:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I don’t see how, nor why, we could associate experience with matter. Then > with mechanism, we have to explain the appearance of matter from the > universal

Re: for Cosmin

> On 21 May 2019, at 10:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Derive red from there. > > On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 10:18:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > We accept the arithmetical reality (we postulate “2+2=4” & Co., and derive > experience and ideas from there. They appear

Re: for Cosmin

No, you shouldn't. In the same way that you cannot pass the borders of other countries. Not because there is a "physical" wall there, but because other consciousnesses don't allow you. Is the same for more intimate limitations of your own consciousness: other consciousnesses (that you cannot

Re: for Cosmin

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 5:35:33 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > How does "matter" (which is just an idea in consciousness) provides > grounding for anything ? > If everything was consciousness (an ontology of pure experience), then I should be able to astrally project, run around in a

Re: for Cosmin

How does "matter" (which is just an idea in consciousness) provides grounding for anything ? -- 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

Re: for Cosmin

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:13:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I don’t see how, nor why, we could associate experience with matter. Then > with mechanism, we have to explain the appearance of matter from the > universal numbers and their relations. Materialism requires non-mechanism.

Re: for Cosmin

Derive red from there. On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 10:18:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > We accept the arithmetical reality (we postulate “2+2=4” & Co., and > derive experience and ideas from there. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything

Re: for Cosmin

> On 20 May 2019, at 11:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > They are synonymous. Look at Berkeley or Locke to see how they use the word > "idea". That's where also "idealism" comes from. Experience concerns the soul, or the first person. Mind and ideas are more general. The

Re: for Cosmin

> On 19 May 2019, at 20:41, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:11:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 16 May 2019, at 12:25, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 14 May 2019, at

Re: for Cosmin

They are synonymous. Look at Berkeley or Locke to see how they use the word "idea". That's where also "idealism" comes from. On Sunday, 19 May 2019 20:11:50 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 May 2019, at 13:00, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >

Re: for Cosmin

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:11:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 May 2019, at 12:25, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 May 2019, at 20:45, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Re: for Cosmin

> On 17 May 2019, at 13:00, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > "Matter" is an idea in consciousness. Even an experience, before becoming an idea. Bruno > > On Thursday, 16 May 2019 13:25:55 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > But I say the old guys - Thales, Democritus,

Re: for Cosmin

> On 16 May 2019, at 12:25, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 14 May 2019, at 20:45, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:24:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 13 May 2019, at

Re: for Cosmin

"Matter" is an idea in consciousness. On Thursday, 16 May 2019 13:25:55 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > But I say the old guys - Thales, Democritus, Epicurus - had more of the > right idea of *what matter is.* > > @philipthrift > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: for Cosmin

This might be of interest: Water & Earth On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:45 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:24:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 May 2019, at 20:24, Philip Thrift wrote: >>

Re: for Cosmin

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 May 2019, at 20:45, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:24:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 May 2019, at 20:24, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, May 13, 2019

Re: for Cosmin

> On 14 May 2019, at 20:45, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:24:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 May 2019, at 20:24, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 10 May 2019, at

Re: for Cosmin

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:24:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 May 2019, at 20:24, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 May 2019, at 09:12, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> When someone says

Re: for Cosmin

> On 13 May 2019, at 20:24, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 10 May 2019, at 09:12, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> When someone says "consciousness is not a material thing" I think of Wile E. >> Coyote. >> >>

Re: for Cosmin

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:25:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 May 2019, at 09:12, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > When someone says "consciousness is not a material thing" I think of Wile > E. Coyote. > > Consciousnesses need something (matter) to hang on to. Consciousnesses

Re: for Cosmin

> On 10 May 2019, at 18:30, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > I tried astral projection [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection > ] and unlike others here it > doesn't work. Lol So because you don’t succeed in getting out of your body,

Re: for Cosmin

> On 10 May 2019, at 09:12, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > When someone says "consciousness is not a material thing" I think of Wile E. > Coyote. > > Consciousnesses need something (matter) to hang on to. Consciousnesses just > don't go floating around willy-nilly. The Coyote finds that out

Re: for Cosmin

> On 9 May 2019, at 22:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/9/2019 1:05 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> And what has this to do with consciousness ? >> >> On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:40:59 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> For me it boils down to that a

Re: for Cosmin

But you are. Just not all the time. On Saturday, 11 May 2019 14:07:13 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > > > If your consciousness is not attached to matter (your brain), you should > be able to do this. > > And report back! > > @philipthrift > > -- You received this message because you are

Re: for Cosmin

If your consciousness is not attached to matter (your brain), you should be able to do this. And report back! @philipthrift On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 5:13:05 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > What does this has to do with the invented idea of "matter" ? > > On Friday, 10 May 2019

Re: for Cosmin

What does this has to do with the invented idea of "matter" ? On Friday, 10 May 2019 19:30:06 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > I tried astral projection [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection ] and unlike others here > it doesn't work. > > @philipthrift > > -- You received this

Re: for Cosmin

I tried astral projection [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection ] and unlike others here it doesn't work. @philipthrift On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 4:48:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > Why ? > > On Friday, 10 May 2019 10:12:10 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >>

Re: for Cosmin

Why ? On Friday, 10 May 2019 10:12:10 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Consciousnesses need something (matter) to hang on to. > -- 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

Re: for Cosmin

On Fri, May 10, 2019, at 08:12, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > When someone says "consciousness is not a material thing" I think of Wile E. > Coyote. > > Consciousnesses need something (matter) to hang on to. Or the other way around. We don't really know. Telmo. > Consciousnesses just don't

Re: for Cosmin

When someone says "consciousness is not a material thing" I think of Wile E. Coyote. Consciousnesses need something (matter) to hang on to. Consciousnesses just don't go floating around willy-nilly. The Coyote finds that out when he finds out he is hanging on to nothing, and looks down.

Re: for Cosmin

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, but I don't see your point. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:43 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:31:11 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Since consciousness is not a material thing, ... >> > > >

Re: for Cosmin

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:31:11 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Since consciousness is not a material thing, ... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnMvj9HETZw @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: for Cosmin

Since consciousness is not a material thing, a metaphysics in which the primary reality is not physical makes it possible to reconcile the link between brains and minds. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:05 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > And what has

Re: for Cosmin

On 5/9/2019 1:05 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: And what has this to do with consciousness ? On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:40:59 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: For me it boils down to that a theory of everything in which all possible worlds exist is more plausible than one

Re: for Cosmin

And what has this to do with consciousness ? On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:40:59 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > For me it boils down to that a theory of everything in which all possible > worlds exist is more plausible than one in which only world does. > > -- You received this message because

Re: for Cosmin

For me it boils down to that a theory of everything in which all possible worlds exist is more plausible than one in which only world does. On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:53 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Why are you idealist ? > > -- > You received

Re: for Cosmin

Why are you idealist ? -- 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 post to this group, send email to

Re: for Cosmin

I'm not claiming to know much about your ideas. I admit to not understanding a lot of it, and I also admit to not caring enough to improve my understanding. Part of the reason I don't care enough is because I've learned to distrust people who say they know the truth of reality. Especially when

Re: for Cosmin

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:37 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Of course GR is false [...] Telepathy and recincarnation on the other > hand are true > It turns out I was incorrect when I said Cosmin Visan was a crackpot, based on the above information I would say

Re: for Cosmin

You seem to know a lot about my ideas, without even having read them. So I ask you once again: what are my 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

Re: for Cosmin

Give me a break dude. The spirit of science is to say "I don't know". The scientific graveyard is littered with the bones of those who were certain about their theories. It demands intellectual humility. That's the ironic thing. I'd have more respect for your ideas if you weren't so certain about

Re: for Cosmin

So according to you, there is no science, because we don't have all the answers. Nobody knows anything because nobody knows everything. Such logic, much wow! On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 18:01:26 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > When you admit to not knowing how a crucial part of your theory works, >

Re: for Cosmin

When you admit to not knowing how a crucial part of your theory works, it's impossible for me to know your theory, because you don't even know it. Don't get me wrong. It's important, and good, to say "I don't know". However, that one moment of intellectual humility, however praise-worthy, gets

Re: for Cosmin

Then how can you say anything about my theory if you don't know what my theory is ? On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 15:39:58 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > That's your job, not mine. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: for Cosmin

That's your job, not mine. On Tue, May 7, 2019, 2:00 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I don't even know what you think my theory is. Can you enlighten me ? What > is my theory ? > > On Monday, 6 May 2019 21:54:13 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >>

Re: for Cosmin

I don't even know what you think my theory is. Can you enlighten me ? What is my theory ? On Monday, 6 May 2019 21:54:13 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > I don't know how you can be so certain you're right when you don't even > know how your theory works. > > -- You received this message

Re: for Cosmin

[image: image.png] On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:54 PM Terren Suydam wrote: > You have at best an incomplete theory of how things work, if you don't > know how qualia are generated. Which means, for starters, you can't stand > behind the prediction you made. But more to the point, what are you even

Re: for Cosmin

You have at best an incomplete theory of how things work, if you don't know how qualia are generated. Which means, for starters, you can't stand behind the prediction you made. But more to the point, what are you even doing here? Maybe you should pivot into selling cars without engines, or houses

Re: for Cosmin

Of course GR is false since it is just a conceptual construct in consciousness that will continue to be replaced by other conceptual constructs along the centuries until a final theory will come up that will talk directly about red is red. That will be the end point because red will not be

Re: for Cosmin

There are suggestive studies. My mind is open to the possibility of paranormal phenomena. But it hasn't been proven beyond any reasonable standard of proof. It is certainly not a "given" that telepathy and reincarnation are real. Your turn. Is the theory of general relativity true? I know your

Re: for Cosmin

And ? What about the evidence that I gave you ? You are just ignoring it ? -- 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

Re: for Cosmin

Also, I brought up carbon monoxide poisoning a couple weeks ago, and you had nothing to say about creating qualia back then. I suspect you're just making it up as you go. On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:53 AM Terren Suydam wrote: > I know a charlatan when I see one. They tend to make claims that

Re: for Cosmin

I know a charlatan when I see one. They tend to make claims that can't be verified and resort to emotional arguments and other rhetorical tricks to influence people. To your credit, you did manage to finally come up with a prediction, which puts you on the same level as someone who accepted

Re: for Cosmin

Sorry mate, your ignorance is not a substitute for lack of evidence. Here it is a cure for ignorance: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm Regarding Randi, lol, haven't you already figured it out that he is a charlatan ? On Monday, 6 May 2019 18:36:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > >

Re: for Cosmin

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:23 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> *> you cherry-pick what to believe in, against all evidence.* So says the man who doesn't believe that computers or brains or atoms or even calculations exist, but does believe that reincarnation and telepathy

Re: for Cosmin

Givens? You have proof of reincarnation and telepathy? This is news to me. Over a thousand people took James Randi's million dollar challenge but nobody got the money. Would love to see your evidence. On the other hand,

Re: for Cosmin

Of course they are givens. It is not my fault that you cherry-pick what to believe in, against all evidence. On Sunday, 5 May 2019 18:58:10 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > But reincarnation and telepathy are just givens, to be accepted as real > with no caveats whatsoever. > > -- You received

Re: for Cosmin

First, that's one-to-one and so inconsistent with almost everyone having the same range of qualia. Second, I don't have any memory of past lives, nor does anyone I know.  But they all report about the same range of qualia. Brent On 5/5/2019 1:15 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

Re: for Cosmin

I love how you use scare quotes around the word "science" and constantly remind us that the brain doesn't exist, and you dismiss correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. But reincarnation and telepathy are just givens, to be accepted as real with no caveats whatsoever.

Re: for Cosmin

Probably the same way memories from past lives are past on through reincarnation. On Sunday, 5 May 2019 08:23:33 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > What I wonder is how do these new qualia get passed on to his progeny, > since DNA doesn't exist. > > Brent > -- You received this message because you are

Re: for Cosmin

What I wonder is how do these new qualia get passed on to his progeny, since DNA doesn't exist. Brent On 5/4/2019 7:44 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: So you're counting this anecdote as evidence for your theory? Is this what you mean by evolution, that the author of that story evolved to

Re: for Cosmin

So you're counting this anecdote as evidence for your theory? Is this what you mean by evolution, that the author of that story evolved to experience new qualia in the form of a reality-selecting extra-dimensional universe-sized roulette wheel, and it's this evolution that enabled him to survive?

Re: for Cosmin

Here is an example of a fascinating qualia generation that helped him survive a car accident: https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1wilson_fde.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: for Cosmin

On 5/4/2019 7:53 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: I'm not going to read your articles or your book or watch your videos because you've given me no reason to spend my most precious resource, which is time. Perhaps I'm being closed-minded, but under the assumption that you want as many people to read

Re: for Cosmin

On 5/4/2019 7:25 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: I should emphasize a little more what life-or-death situation means for your dog experiment. If you somehow plan to make the colorblind dog starve to death and put in front of him food and expect him to see colors and eat the

Re: for Cosmin

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 12:56 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> Regarding the dog, I would never run that specific experiment because >> it's unethical. There are potentially other ways to settle the bet, though. >> If we can generalize your

Re: for Cosmin

On Saturday, 4 May 2019 17:54:03 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > I'm not going to read your articles or your book or watch your videos > because you've given me no reason to spend my most precious resource, which > is time. Perhaps I'm being closed-minded, but under the assumption that you >

Re: for Cosmin

I'm not going to read your articles or your book or watch your videos because you've given me no reason to spend my most precious resource, which is time. Perhaps I'm being closed-minded, but under the assumption that you want as many people to read and consider your ideas as possible, you may

Re: for Cosmin

I should emphasize a little more what life-or-death situation means for your dog experiment. If you somehow plan to make the colorblind dog starve to death and put in front of him food and expect him to see colors and eat the food, but in case he doesn't see colors you make a back-up plan of

Re: for Cosmin

On Thursday, 2 May 2019 15:32:43 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the >> looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which

Re: for Cosmin

This reveals that you confuse the map with the territory. You don't get to excuse contradictions in your theory by saying, that's just how reality is. If you're saying the only thing exists is consciousness, that's an idea, a map. Then, there are consequences to that idea - as you flesh out your

Re: for Cosmin

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the > looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which self-reference > finds objects in itself and identifies with those

Re: for Cosmin

So indeed, only consciousness exists. But there "are" other entities that are unformalizable that have effects on existing entities. Is not a contradiction what I'm saying. Is just how reality is. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

Re: for Cosmin

It's late here and I'm going to sleep. But I will add just one point. As I mentioned earlier, the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which self-reference finds objects in itself and identifies with those objects. "Existence" is

Re: for Cosmin

OK, nice, that's a prediction that can be tested. That's getting somewhere. I would bet a significant sum on your prediction being false. A color blind animal would not spontaneously be able to see color, no matter how hungry it was. Anyway, you didn't address my concern about being able to posit

Re: for Cosmin

Talking about consciousness itself is a post-hoc statement. Even formulating the sentence "Consciousness is all there is." is a post-hoc statement that is created out of words that are highly contingent entities. So where do you draw the line between what is admitted to be considered "first

Re: for Cosmin

On 5/1/2019 10:36 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: You are confusing people that have by default the instinct to kill Is that a quale?

Re: for Cosmin

You have no principled basis on which to make claims about evolutionary dynamics of any kind. It's a post-hoc, just-so justification of the kinds of qualia that we experience. Evolution doesn't follow in the slightest from your first principles, which is merely that consciousness is all that

Re: for Cosmin

On 5/1/2019 9:57 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 3) The interaction of consciousnesses is in part evolutionary. We are not living in a "physical" world, we are living in an evolutionary world in which consciousnesses adapt one to another and evolve new qualia in order to meet

Re: for Cosmin

No, I'm saying that cultural institutions whose metaphysics relies on authority (e.g. God's Will) lead to authoritarian systems (crazy, right?) We should rightly distrust any system that relies on revelation or obedience to an authority that cannot be questioned. Likewise, any philosophy that

Re: for Cosmin

As I already told you: interactions are not random: they are taking place in an evolutionary context. On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > I'm saying that it's indistinguishable from one that does. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: for Cosmin

You are confusing people that have by default the instinct to kill with the reasons that those people invoke to make their killing instincts noble. Long

Re: for Cosmin

Because God's Will is a shitty explanation of reality (it explains precisely zero), and worse, it's been repeatedly abused throughout history to justify all sorts of horrific actions including genocide, torture, theft, and so on. I'm not saying your theory is literally invoking God's Will. I'm

Re: for Cosmin

Besides, you are attacking here a strawman. 1) Not only my consciousness exists, but others as well. 2) Those other consciousnesses can be anything, not only demons and angels. The type of consciousnesses that exist are constrained at least in part by evolutionary context. 3) The interaction of

Re: for Cosmin

And if that's how reality is, that God wills it, what is the problem ? On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:45:02 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Exactly: "God wills it". Peace out homey > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: for Cosmin

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Unless you can say what kind of fact you could discover that would >> invalidate your theory, it's a hard no for me. >> > >

Re: for Cosmin

> On 1 May 2019, at 11:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Well, I invite you to formalize red in whatever logic you want, and then work > your magic for blind people and make them see red solely by understanding > your formalisation. I can formalise the notion of universal

Re: for Cosmin

Exactly: "God wills it". Peace out homey On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated. > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> Unless you

Re: for Cosmin

Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated. On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > Unless you can say what kind of fact you could discover that would > invalidate your theory, it's a hard no for me. > > -- You received this message because you are

Re: for Cosmin

So far, this is all you've been able to unambiguously articulate: - only my consciousness exists - other consciousnesses exist - the world appears the way it does due to the interaction of consciousnesses As you have no way to formalize "interaction of consciousnesses", you're unable

Re: for Cosmin

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:37:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > > On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:03:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via

Re: for Cosmin

Well, I invite you to formalize red in whatever logic you want, and then work your magic for blind people and make them see red solely by understanding your formalisation. Good luck! On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:37:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I know you will not do it, but formalising in

Re: for Cosmin

> On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:03:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there

Re: for Cosmin

Not at all. As I already told you, for any claim of the form "X exists" (where in this case you assume X is something outside consciousness), "X exists" is actually a thought in consciousness, therefore X doesn't exist since it is just a confabulation of consciousness. More than this, from

Re: for Cosmin

You're failing to see that consciousness is all we can *know. *You go too far when you claim that it's all that *exists*. On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 6:42 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > You said by denying my obvious statement that consciousness is

  1   2   >