Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 definable relations, be them computable or not.

The theories are tools to explore that reality, but after Gödel 1931, we know 
that any effective theory (effective = those theories where the proof are 
checkable in finite time) can only scratch the model.

Arithmetic is “essentially undecidable”. You can build a theory and add as many 
axioms as you want, you still only scratch the surface of the truth. Not just 
because it is infinite (first order real analysis is much more infinite than 
the natural numbers) but is decidable!, but because it is irreducibly complex.

Bruno 



> 
> 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 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/550bcd11-9ad5-4f09-a537-15fb9b0f3c1f%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/AFD30D9E-FC89-48C1-9931-EDB3F423D855%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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” sum up useful information in the normal first 
person (plural) continuations. It is hard to be simple and short on this, but 
you might study a bit of computer science and my papers. The role of the brain 
is to make possible for consciousness to manage quickly complex possible 
(relative) situations, I would say.

Bruno





> 
> 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 (defined with a mathematical apparatus G*, 
> often called logic of self-reference) in the communicable part. It shows that 
> a s-certain type of machine will be able to describes what it sees, name 
> colours, and be able to understand that their qualia seems not rationally 
> communicable. The machine might see  the red coloration more like a “green” 
> perhaps, but of course, she will learn to call it green.
> 
> You need to read some book in logic to grasp fully what G* is all about. But 
> that is the answer in a nutshell.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/56e19ce5-d6b0-4d34-9887-b2d15b997a73%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/8bb0e551-fd0c-4111-8645-d6eebe8627e5%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/7A496F19-6344-4A5E-8D34-A8E264B01EF9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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/550bcd11-9ad5-4f09-a537-15fb9b0f3c1f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 (defined with a mathematical 
> apparatus G*, often called logic of self-reference) in the communicable 
> part. It shows that a s-certain type of machine will be able to describes 
> what it sees, name colours, and be able to understand that their qualia 
> seems not rationally communicable. The machine might see  the red 
> coloration more like a “green” perhaps, but of course, she will learn to 
> call it green.
>
> You need to read some book in logic to grasp fully what G* is all about. 
> But that is the answer in a nutshell.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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/56e19ce5-d6b0-4d34-9887-b2d15b997a73%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/8bb0e551-fd0c-4111-8645-d6eebe8627e5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 mechanism, we have to explain the appearance of matter from the 
>> universal numbers and their relations. Materialism requires non-mechanism. 
>> I have never found any evidence for (weak) materialism, but there are many 
>> evidence for mechanism, and computer science provides a mathematically 
>> precise theory of 3p self, 1p self, and material selves, in a precise 
>> enough way so that it can be tested. Up to now, QM assesses mechanism, 
>> which is not the case with Laplace or Newton.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> One could have an an ontology of pure phenomenology, of pure experiences, 
> including first-person experience: "I am."
>
> Or one of pure information, of pure arithmetic/logic, from low-order PA to 
> higher-order modal and  even infinitary arithmetics/logics.
>
> The first captures the real existence of experience, but misses the 
> grounding that matter provides.
>
> The second captures all possible behavioral descriptions, but has the big 
> hole in it of missing experience itself.
>
>
> That is where you are incorrect. Arithmetic (not to be confused with human 
> theories about arithmetic) contains what is needed to assess  experiences 
> and first personhood to numbers, or more exactly to infinitely many numbers 
> relations.
>
> The universal machines already explains that she has a soul, but that she 
> cannot prove this to you, as you cannot prove that you are conscious to me, 
> even if I bet you are.
>
> Only matter supplies what is needed for both.
>
>
> It adds something we don’t understand to something we make unintelligible, 
> like a mind-body identification.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
This was posted today. If each person is in a real number, then *Watch out!*



Joel David Hamkins
@JDHamkins

·
7h 
We'll be throwing darts at the real line today at the Phil Maths seminar.

@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/c795d369-98ba-4699-a5f4-eb0e76e372e6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 numbers and their relations. Materialism requires non-mechanism. I 
> have never found any evidence for (weak) materialism, but there are many 
> evidence for mechanism, and computer science provides a mathematically 
> precise theory of 3p self, 1p self, and material selves, in a precise enough 
> way so that it can be tested. Up to now, QM assesses mechanism, which is not 
> the case with Laplace or Newton.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> One could have an an ontology of pure phenomenology, of pure experiences, 
> including first-person experience: "I am."
> 
> Or one of pure information, of pure arithmetic/logic, from low-order PA to 
> higher-order modal and  even infinitary arithmetics/logics.
> 
> The first captures the real existence of experience, but misses the grounding 
> that matter provides.
> 
> The second captures all possible behavioral descriptions, but has the big 
> hole in it of missing experience itself.

That is where you are incorrect. Arithmetic (not to be confused with human 
theories about arithmetic) contains what is needed to assess  experiences and 
first personhood to numbers, or more exactly to infinitely many numbers 
relations.

The universal machines already explains that she has a soul, but that she 
cannot prove this to you, as you cannot prove that you are conscious to me, 
even if I bet you are.



> 
> Only matter supplies what is needed for both.


It adds something we don’t understand to something we make unintelligible, like 
a mind-body identification.

Bruno



> 
> @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/76d41c02-48b1-4ae7-b754-e51c0b5fb1af%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/FD6604CA-D6AB-47F5-8962-E5A9ED7A6715%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 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 (defined with a mathematical apparatus G*, 
often called logic of self-reference) in the communicable part. It shows that a 
s-certain type of machine will be able to describes what it sees, name colours, 
and be able to understand that their qualia seems not rationally communicable. 
The machine might see  the red coloration more like a “green” perhaps, but of 
course, she will learn to call it green.

You need to read some book in logic to grasp fully what G* is all about. But 
that is the answer in a nutshell.

Bruno





> 
> -- 
> 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/56e19ce5-d6b0-4d34-9887-b2d15b997a73%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/9F2FDC05-F7A7-4964-A0D0-AA24371840AE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 even identify or imagine) are limiting your own consciousness. (and 
you limit their consciousnesses)

On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 15:41:06 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 Game of Thrones 
> reality, hang out with Sherlock Holmes, ...
>

-- 
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/f418c39b-8bc5-448e-aaaf-dad840dae90d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 Game of Thrones 
reality, hang out with Sherlock Holmes, ...

Matter (while being the source of consciousness) grounds and constrains 
your consciousness. Matter is why you wake up to the same world every day.

@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/55345f07-559c-4e18-bc02-05a02a4af2a2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/212af6c3-0314-4b92-8909-6acf6bc5bdb7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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. 
> I have never found any evidence for (weak) materialism, but there are many 
> evidence for mechanism, and computer science provides a mathematically 
> precise theory of 3p self, 1p self, and material selves, in a precise 
> enough way so that it can be tested. Up to now, QM assesses mechanism, 
> which is not the case with Laplace or Newton.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
One could have an an ontology of pure phenomenology, of pure experiences, 
including first-person experience: "I am."

Or one of pure information, of pure arithmetic/logic, from low-order PA to 
higher-order modal and  even infinitary arithmetics/logics.

The first captures the real existence of experience, but misses the 
grounding that matter provides.

The second captures all possible behavioral descriptions, but has the big 
hole in it of missing experience itself.

Only matter supplies what is needed for both.

@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/76d41c02-48b1-4ae7-b754-e51c0b5fb1af%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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/56e19ce5-d6b0-4d34-9887-b2d15b997a73%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 “world of ideas” is well handled by the “phi_i”. It is all the 3p 
reality accessible by a Turing machine. The experience and soul are semantical 
fixed point for transformation on the world of ideas.

You confirm my feeling that Mechanism, despite its immaterialism, is not an 
idealism. We accept the arithmetical reality (we postulate “2+2=4” & Co., and 
derive experience and ideas from there.

Bruno



> 
> 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 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> "Matter" is an idea in consciousness.
> 
> Even an experience, before becoming an idea.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> -- 
> 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/b9d52ed6-a904-414d-b970-03814a3b769a%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/1A96671D-F421-4BC5-B7E5-07ED169811AE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 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 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 when 
> he finds out he is hanging on to nothing, and looks down. 
 
 
 That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
 commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
 of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect 
 experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it 
 can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
 
 Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
 incompatible with YD+CT.
 It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do not 
 commit a so strong ontological commitment.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's De rerum 
 natura [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura 
  ] was a poem about the 
 philosophy of Epicurus).
 
 Aristotle's philosophy is confused nonsense, especially when compared to 
 Epicurus’s.
>>> 
>>> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and 
>>> enough precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. 
>>> I tend to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, 
>>> that is the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
>>> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
>>> metaphysics). 
>>> 
>>> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
>>> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
>>> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the 
>>> first move.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, 
>>> the most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about 
>>> the same time as Aristotle.
>>> 
>>> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on matter:
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
>>>  thesis, which comes down to us 
>>> through a passage from Aristotle 
>>> 's Metaphysics 
>>> . In the work 
>>> Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
>>>  about the nature of all matter 
>>>  – that the 
>>> originating principle of nature  was a 
>>> single material substance : 
>>> water. Aristotle then proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on 
>>> his own observations to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced 
>>> this idea (though Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
>>> 
>>> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
>>>  which may shed some light on 
>>> the ideas of Thales, in Metaphysics 
>>>  983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The 
>>> passage contains words that were later adopted by science with quite 
>>> different meanings.)
>>> 
>>> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes 
>>> and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, 
>>> but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle 
>>> of things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
>>> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the 
>>> object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says 
>>> that it is water.
>>> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and the 
>>> 

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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:
>
> "Matter" is an idea in consciousness.
>
>
> Even an experience, before becoming an idea.
>
> Bruno
>

-- 
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/b9d52ed6-a904-414d-b970-03814a3b769a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 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 "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. 



 That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
 commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
 of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect 
 experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it 
 can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).

 Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
 incompatible with YD+CT.
 It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do 
 not commit a so strong ontological commitment.

 Bruno

>>>
>>>
>>> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's *De 
>>> rerum natur*a [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura ] was a 
>>> poem about the philosophy of Epicurus).
>>>
>>> Aristotle's philosophy is *confused nonsense*, especially when compared 
>>> to Epicurus’s.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and 
>>> enough precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. 
>>> I tend to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, 
>>> that is the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
>>> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
>>> metaphysics). 
>>>
>>> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
>>> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
>>> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the 
>>> first move.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, 
>> the most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about 
>> the same time as Aristotle.
>>
>> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on 
>> matter:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle
>>
>> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
>>  thesis, which comes down to us 
>> through a passage from Aristotle 
>> 's *Metaphysics 
>> *. In the work 
>> Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
>>  about *the nature of 
>> all matter  – 
>> that the originating principle of nature 
>>  was a single material substance 
>> *: *water*. Aristotle 
>> then proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on his own 
>> observations to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced this 
>> idea (though Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
>>
>> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
>>  which may shed some light 
>> on the ideas of Thales, in *Metaphysics 
>> * 983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The 
>> passage contains words that were later adopted by science with quite 
>> different meanings.)
>>
>> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes 
>> and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, 
>> but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle 
>> of things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
>> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the 
>> object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says 
>> that it is water.
>>
>> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and 
>> the definition of substance 
>> . He asked if an object 
>> changes, is it the same or different? In either case how can there be a 
>> change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance "is saved", 
>> but 

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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, Epicurus - had more of the right 
> idea of what matter is. 
> 
> @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/a70733e4-f5c9-4821-a541-c2ae968add0d%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/C9543A3A-4C2A-4746-B5B0-B2086C04B99E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 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.
 
 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. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
>>> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
>>> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect 
>>> experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it 
>>> can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>>> 
>>> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
>>> incompatible with YD+CT.
>>> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do not 
>>> commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's De rerum 
>>> natura [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura 
>>>  ] was a poem about the 
>>> philosophy of Epicurus).
>>> 
>>> Aristotle's philosophy is confused nonsense, especially when compared to 
>>> Epicurus’s.
>> 
>> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and 
>> enough precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. 
>> I tend to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, 
>> that is the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
>> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
>> metaphysics). 
>> 
>> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
>> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
>> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the first 
>> move.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, the 
>> most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about the 
>> same time as Aristotle.
>> 
>> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on matter:
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle 
>> 
>> 
>> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
>>  thesis, which comes down to us 
>> through a passage from Aristotle 's 
>> Metaphysics . In the 
>> work Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
>>  about the nature of all matter 
>>  – that the 
>> originating principle of nature  was a 
>> single material substance : 
>> water. Aristotle then proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on 
>> his own observations to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced 
>> this idea (though Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
>> 
>> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
>>  which may shed some light on 
>> the ideas of Thales, in Metaphysics 
>>  983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The passage 
>> contains words that were later adopted by science with quite different 
>> meanings.)
>> 
>> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes 
>> and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, but 
>> transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle of 
>> things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
>> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the 
>> object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says 
>> that it is water.
>> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and the 
>> definition of substance . He 
>> asked if an object changes, is it the same or different? In either case how 
>> can there be a change from one to the other? The answer is that the 
>> substance "is 

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

"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 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/a70733e4-f5c9-4821-a541-c2ae968add0d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Samiya Illias]

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:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological
>>> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory
>>> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect
>>> experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it
>>> can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>>>
>>> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic
>>> incompatible with YD+CT.
>>> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do
>>> not commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's *De rerum
>> natur*a [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura ] was a poem
>> about the philosophy of Epicurus).
>>
>> Aristotle's philosophy is *confused nonsense*, especially when compared
>> to Epicurus’s.
>>
>>
>> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and
>> enough precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology.
>> I tend to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter,
>> that is the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in
>> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his
>> metaphysics).
>>
>> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t
>> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a
>> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the
>> first move.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus,
> the most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about
> the same time as Aristotle.
>
> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on
> matter:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle
>
> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological
>  thesis, which comes down to us
> through a passage from Aristotle 
> 's *Metaphysics *. In
> the work Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis
>  about *the nature of
> all matter  –
> that the originating principle of nature
>  was a single material substance
> *: *water*. Aristotle then
> proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on his own observations
> to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced this idea (though
> Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
>
> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form
>  which may shed some light on
> the ideas of Thales, in *Metaphysics
> * 983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The
> passage contains words that were later adopted by science with quite
> different meanings.)
>
> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes
> and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it,
> but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle
> of things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις),
> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the
> object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says
> that it is water.
>
> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and
> the definition of substance
> . He asked if an object
> changes, is it the same or different? In either case how can there be a
> change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance "is saved",
> but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the things you
> "experience").
>
>
> Aristotle conjectured that Thales reached his conclusion by contemplating
> that the "nourishment of all things is moist and that even the hot is
> created from the wet and lives 

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 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 
>>> 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. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
>>> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
>>> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect 
>>> experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it 
>>> can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>>>
>>> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
>>> incompatible with YD+CT.
>>> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do 
>>> not commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's *De rerum 
>> natur*a [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura ] was a poem 
>> about the philosophy of Epicurus).
>>
>> Aristotle's philosophy is *confused nonsense*, especially when compared 
>> to Epicurus’s.
>>
>>
>> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and 
>> enough precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. 
>> I tend to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, 
>> that is the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
>> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
>> metaphysics). 
>>
>> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
>> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
>> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the 
>> first move.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, 
> the most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about 
> the same time as Aristotle.
>
> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on 
> matter:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle
>
> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
>  thesis, which comes down to us 
> through a passage from Aristotle 
> 's *Metaphysics *. In 
> the work Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
>  about *the nature of 
> all matter  – 
> that the originating principle of nature 
>  was a single material substance 
> *: *water*. Aristotle then 
> proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on his own observations 
> to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced this idea (though 
> Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
>
> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
>  which may shed some light on 
> the ideas of Thales, in *Metaphysics 
> * 983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The 
> passage contains words that were later adopted by science with quite 
> different meanings.)
>
> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes 
> and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, 
> but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle 
> of things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the 
> object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says 
> that it is water.
>
> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and 
> the definition of substance 
> . He asked if an object 
> changes, is it the same or different? In either case how can there be a 
> change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance "is saved", 
> but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the things you 
> "experience").
>
>
> Aristotle conjectured that Thales reached his conclusion by contemplating 
> that the "nourishment of all things is moist and that even the hot is 
> created 

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 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 when he 
>>> finds out he is hanging on to nothing, and looks down. 
>> 
>> 
>> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
>> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
>> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect experience 
>> has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it can’t be a 
>> boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>> 
>> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
>> incompatible with YD+CT.
>> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do not 
>> commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's De rerum 
>> natura [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura 
>>  ] was a poem about the 
>> philosophy of Epicurus).
>> 
>> Aristotle's philosophy is confused nonsense, especially when compared to 
>> Epicurus’s.
> 
> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and enough 
> precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. I tend 
> to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, that is 
> the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
> metaphysics). 
> 
> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the first 
> move.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, the 
> most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about the 
> same time as Aristotle.
> 
> But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on matter:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle 
> 
> 
> Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
>  thesis, which comes down to us 
> through a passage from Aristotle 's 
> Metaphysics . In the 
> work Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
>  about the nature of all matter 
>  – that the 
> originating principle of nature  was a 
> single material substance : 
> water. Aristotle then proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on 
> his own observations to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced 
> this idea (though Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).
> 
> Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
>  which may shed some light on the 
> ideas of Thales, in Metaphysics  
> 983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The passage contains words that were later adopted by 
> science with quite different meanings.)
> 
> That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes and 
> into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, but 
> transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle of 
> things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
> either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the object 
> being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says that it is 
> water.
> In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and the 
> definition of substance . He 
> asked if an object changes, is it the same or different? In either case how 
> can there be a change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance 
> "is saved", but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the things you 
> "experience").
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle conjectured that Thales reached his conclusion by contemplating 
> that the "nourishment of all things is moist and that even the 

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 "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. 
>>
>>
>>
>> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
>> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
>> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect 
>> experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it 
>> can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>>
>> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
>> incompatible with YD+CT.
>> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do 
>> not commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
>
> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's *De rerum 
> natur*a [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura ] was a poem 
> about the philosophy of Epicurus).
>
> Aristotle's philosophy is *confused nonsense*, especially when compared 
> to Epicurus’s.
>
>
> This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and 
> enough precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. 
> I tend to consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, 
> that is the first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in 
> metaphysics), but that is also the only place where he get confused (his 
> metaphysics). 
>
> As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
> appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
> physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the 
> first move.
>
> Bruno
>
>
The atomistic materialist Democritus came before Aristote, and Epicurus, 
the most advanced of the atomists (as written about by Lucretius) was about 
the same time as Aristotle.

But way before them was Thales, who inspired Aristotle's thoughts on matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#Water_as_a_first_principle

Thales' most famous philosophical position was his cosmological 
 thesis, which comes down to us 
through a passage from Aristotle 
's *Metaphysics *. In 
the work Aristotle unequivocally reported Thales’ hypothesis 
 about *the nature of all matter 
 – that 
the originating principle of nature 
 was a single material substance 
*: *water*. Aristotle then 
proceeded to proffer a number of conjectures based on his own observations 
to lend some credence to why Thales may have advanced this idea (though 
Aristotle didn’t hold it himself).

Aristotle laid out his own thinking about matter and form 
 which may shed some light on 
the ideas of Thales, in *Metaphysics 
* 983 b6 8–11, 17–21. (The 
passage contains words that were later adopted by science with quite 
different meanings.)

That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes 
and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, 
but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle 
of things that are. …For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), 
either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the 
object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says 
that it is water.

In this quote we see Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and the 
definition of substance . 
He asked if an object changes, is it the same or different? In either case 
how can there be a change from one to the other? The answer is that the 
substance "is saved", but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the 
things you "experience").


Aristotle conjectured that Thales reached his conclusion by contemplating 
that the "nourishment of all things is moist and that even the hot is 
created from the wet and lives by it." While Aristotle's conjecture on why 
Thales held water as the originating principle of matter is his own 
thinking, his statement that Thales held it as water is generally accepted 
as genuinely originating with Thales and he is seen as an incipient 

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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.
>> 
>> 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. 
> 
> 
> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory of 
> it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect experience has 
> only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it can’t be a 
> boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
> 
> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic incompatible 
> with YD+CT.
> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do not 
> commit a so strong ontological commitment.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's De rerum 
> natura [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura 
>  ] was a poem about the 
> philosophy of Epicurus).
> 
> Aristotle's philosophy is confused nonsense, especially when compared to 
> Epicurus’s.

This is weird. I appreciate Aristotle, because it is rather clear, and enough 
precise to be refuted, with in the natural science and the theology. I tend to 
consider him as the inventor of the notion of primitive matter, that is the 
first which postulate the existence of a physical universe (in metaphysics), 
but that is also the only place where he get confused (his metaphysics). 

As a materialist (a “believer in matter”) it is astonishing you don’t 
appreciate Aristotle. He is really the one who got the idea that “God” is a 
physical universe, even if he add the chiquenaude divine to create the first 
move.

Bruno




> 
> @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/b0f3ab8f-d71f-4beb-bdad-a4fdb2dd2e13%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/1F49FAEA-13E7-4791-A38B-8A0DB4F02AB9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 
> 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. 
>
>
>
> That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
> commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory 
> of it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect 
> experience has only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it 
> can’t be a boolean reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).
>
> Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic 
> incompatible with YD+CT.
> It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do not 
> commit a so strong ontological commitment.
>
> Bruno
>


I was shooting for Epicurean poetry (or Lucretian; Lucretius's *De rerum 
natur*a [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura ] was a poem about 
the philosophy of Epicurus).

Aristotle's philosophy is *confused nonsense*, especially when compared to 
Epicurus's.

@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/b0f3ab8f-d71f-4beb-bdad-a4fdb2dd2e13%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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, you declare that the 
God Matter appears to you?

Consciousness needs only computations, that is, true sigma_1 arithmetical 
sentences.

Then, a reasoning shows that if Mechanism is true, the observable realm is 
mathematically constrained, and up to now, it explains the origin of the 
appearance of nature and of its quantum aspect, as well as its many-histories 
aspects. 

If the prime numbers distribution encapsulates the full complexity of the 
“marriage” between addition and multiplication, and if the Riemann Hypothesis 
is true, then the birth of all phenomenological realities is already in the 
music of the primes.

Empirically, the primes seems to emulate a sort of quantum chaos, generated by 
“heavy nucleus”.

Bruno








> 
> @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:
> 
> 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 it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98f442ee-db3c-4219-a9ec-0ad24807a5fb%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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/08ED9FCD-CB8E-4FBC-8A26-96A3F0FA9F88%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 when he finds 
> out he is hanging on to nothing, and looks down. 


That is nice Aristotelian poetry. But you just repeat you ontological 
commitment in a material world, where no physicist has a consistent theory of 
it, nor even have tried to test its existence. What the Aspect experience has 
only shown, is that IF there is a physicaly reality then it can’t be a boolean 
reality (which would have already annoyed Aristotle).

Then with Mechanism, “Matter” invocation needs to add some magic incompatible 
with YD+CT.
It is like invoking a God to impeach testing simpler theories which do not 
commit a so strong ontological commitment.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
> 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, ...
>  
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnMvj9HETZw 
> 
> 
> 
> @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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aeb38eca-2f64-47f6-b66f-7a8497428913%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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/67773F41-93D0-4235-954C-E72B03BFB8EB%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 theory of everything in which all possible 
>> worlds exist is more plausible than one in which only world does.
> 
> I suspect that arises from a lack of reflection on what "all possible" might 
> mean.


Yes. And with the digital mechanist assumption, the answer is clear cut, we can 
take all true sigma_1 arithmetical proposition. It is Turing equivalent to a 
universal dovetailer. We can’ take more, that is the ultimate price of saying 
yes to the doctor. Like Judson Webb argued, Mechanism is a Finitism.

That sigma_truth emulates the richer machines, which have more cognitive power 
than just the sigma_1 arithmetical truth, like believing in some induction 
axioms, like PA, or any of its consistent extensions, like ZF, a fortiori its 
sound extensions.

An example of a (hopefully) consistent extension of PA is PA + "the axiom “I am 
currently writing a mail which will soon be sent to a local group of universal 
numbers”.

When I have more time I will explain again the universal machinery phi_i, and 
w_i, and provides 4 concrete examples, …and the difference between a universal 
machinery and a universal number. Then the rest follows rom the laws of 
arithmetical self-reference, which applies to machine with richer beliefs, like 
ZF. By definition of ZF, ZF say yes to the doctor!

In a sense, there is no “possible”, only true (sigma_1) arithmetical 
propositions, Quine should be re-assured, but those arithmetical propositions 
contains all computational histories, which can support more reflective 
machines, etc. That determines a flux of consciousness which differentiate, not 
by computation, but by the first person indeterminacy, on all “1p-local" 
relative computations.  The possible is given by the local relative view. They 
obey different, logics, imposed by the incompleteness theorems. The first 
person, the soul, the inner god, is intuitionist, the 3p-outer god and 
intellect are weak logic missing the modus ponies, like a “scratched universal 
machine, or a generalisation of universal dovetlaing), the material mode, with 
the consistency criterion are quantum logics. 
The universal machine which look inward can see the birds of all realities, but 
to get the mathematics, she has to add, ad infinitum, induction axioms as well 
as other axioms. It is *big*, and non trivial.

Bruno




> 
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4e2e4734-a465-4be5-436c-c5e5d06881c1%40verizon.net
>  
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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/78CFE08A-7591-45AF-8342-4A09279E703E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f1c40fe5-dbe3-45a4-af24-77e9d4f14b85%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f34d366-9094-48fd-955d-5bdc28cec0bb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7404762-9ef6-4a1f-8cd1-7c7c5c5adaef%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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:
>>
>>
>> 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 it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98f442ee-db3c-4219-a9ec-0ad24807a5fb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8bab0d9a-d75c-4ebe-966d-0a27223e16bc%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Telmo Menezes]

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 go floating around willy-nilly. The Coyote finds 
> that out when he finds out he is hanging on to nothing, and looks down. 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>> 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, ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnMvj9HETZw
>>> 
>>> 
>>> @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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>  Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aeb38eca-2f64-47f6-b66f-7a8497428913%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d75bc802-788d-4659-990f-b513faceb8fc%40www.fastmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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. 

@philipthrift

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 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, ...
>>>
>>  
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnMvj9HETZw
>>
>>
>> @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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aeb38eca-2f64-47f6-b66f-7a8497428913%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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, ...
>>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnMvj9HETZw
>
>
> @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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e20dcb03-6a14-486d-b788-eea95604ee6d%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA8PSiqmTtcCOHg9n-HA%2Bv1wE9AsiJLQS-mE1AL_cVNQYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Philip Thrift]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e20dcb03-6a14-486d-b788-eea95604ee6d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e7d86226-0268-4197-b486-9965a643effa%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA-BxM3vjD09o7F9f6Yp-25TrGO0skEkhByjYxaU%3DPEgNg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 in which only
world does.



I suspect that arises from a lack of reflection on what "all possible" 
might mean.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4e2e4734-a465-4be5-436c-c5e5d06881c1%40verizon.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e7d86226-0268-4197-b486-9965a643effa%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a0199352-fc4e-493a-9107-1c905d584ace%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA8f4SAas3dXkeERR_K4fcWjvkhZBjAVJSBOVR_mCHSBLw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a0199352-fc4e-493a-9107-1c905d584ace%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 the account
they give is full of holes.

The funny thing is that philosophically, I'm not that far away from your
position. I'm an idealist myself. But I acknowledge that *I don't know* whether
the world I construct and experience is all there is. I sincerely doubt it,
because the world I construct is so constrained, unlike in my dream states,
and so ordered and lawful, and in ways I don't always understand and
certainly wouldn't choose.

I have always appreciated the Hindu creation myth, which holds
(paraphrasing) that God got bored being just a unified void and so
shattered itself into uncountable pieces, and dreamed every dream possible,
delighting in the drama of consciousness from the perspective of one who
does not know they are God, and delighting even more in those who come to
realize they are.

I can fairly easily relate that creation myth to Bruno's UDA. God is the
natural numbers + addition +  multiplication, which gives rise to the
universal dovetailer, which outputs every dream possible. In the context of
a given dream, the physical world emerges as a sort of stable selection
from the infinity of possible continuations for any given dream state.
There are problems with this account, which have been discussed a lot on
this list... but the problems are subtle, once you wrap your head around
the idea.

I can only relate that creation myth to your ideas if, when you say
consciousness is the only thing that exists (ok), then you must be
referring to God's consciousness. But then I can't make sense of the
physical world. I don't know how that emerges, what gives rise to what
seems to be an ordered, constrained world, on which we all can agree about
the basic facts, like gravity, and the sun, and the need for air and water.
And you don't know, either. It's just an incomplete theory. You hide behind
statements like "buses don't exist", like a pickpocket distracting his
mark's attention, to disguise the fact that you don't have an answer for
why there are any constraints, or you can't stop a bus from hitting you by
commanding it to stop with your mind a la The Matrix.

And it's all because you're so damn sure about what exists.

Terren

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:59 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2d2e18e0-ea39-4b6b-a7ac-887454627ca5%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA_b6G1ObbYeEFgBZeXgySvCoPuFkG5dWqWgTHvjfX%3DnGQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[John Clark]

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 he's either crackpot squared or 2 to
the power of crackpot, probably the latter. I no longer think his
crackpotism can be expressed with a polynomial, it's exponential.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv14XxpzeWVE7TzKvuU%3DpX1FJWEGQDkxGuQ4cHC4TTFytA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2d2e18e0-ea39-4b6b-a7ac-887454627ca5%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 them.

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 11:56 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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,
>> 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 drowned out by the unearned certainty you have in the rest of your
>> theory, even insulting folks on this list for holding alternative positions
>> to yours.
>>
>> So the problem isn't in saying "I don't know". It's in insisting you're
>> right even when you know you don't know.
>>
>> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e5304b84-2b50-46fb-aff8-dca0de870369%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA_aPaMbE12cMSaOMYSo5KceU3Qkmu13JNh-hz2fj_ywhA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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, 
> 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 drowned out by the unearned certainty you have in the rest of your 
> theory, even insulting folks on this list for holding alternative positions 
> to yours. 
>
> So the problem isn't in saying "I don't know". It's in insisting you're 
> right even when you know you don't know.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e5304b84-2b50-46fb-aff8-dca0de870369%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 drowned out by the unearned certainty you have in the rest of your
theory, even insulting folks on this list for holding alternative positions
to yours.

So the problem isn't in saying "I don't know". It's in insisting you're
right even when you know you don't know.


On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:50 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00fede8e-f966-4585-8dbe-a4c98893ac30%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA8-Dh%2Bjwr0GLw%2B6CyXT_Y4p1-T0V6MmarTnOSPy4R9Zew%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00fede8e-f966-4585-8dbe-a4c98893ac30%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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:
>>
>> 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bafe0745-146e-40cc-86c3-37d0d72c6f6e%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA8gv4R%3D2_fc9r1XZaGRpnR%2BR0g5PSmXvbjfM%2BH87YrH4g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bafe0745-146e-40cc-86c3-37d0d72c6f6e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

[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
> doing here?  Maybe you should pivot into selling cars without engines, or
> houses without roofs. I don't know how you can be so certain you're right
> when you don't even know how your theory works.
>
> Terren
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:37 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 anymore a conceptual construct, but an element of reality.
>>
>> Telepathy and recincarnation on the other hand are true because they are
>> phenomena directly related to consciousness. It might seem "impossible" to
>> you because you have an upside down logic in which you start from an
>> invented "physical world" in which beings are "bodies separated spatially"
>> and of course that from that fantasy that you create it seems impossible
>> for the "soul" to move to another "body separated spatially". But once you
>> use the problem downside up logic, you realize that consciousness is all
>> there is so there are no more "bodies". There being no more bodies, there
>> would be no "soul" to move from one "body" to another. It will just be the
>> same consciousnesses that experiences different qualia. And the experience
>> of different qualia is the most mundane phenomena that there can be.
>>
>> Regarding you carbon monoxide, I already told you that evolutionary
>> reasons for qualia generation is only part of the mechanism, since there
>> are also new qualia that we experience each moment of our lives that
>> clearly don't appear as a consequence of life-or-death situation. If you
>> want to hear the magic words, here they are: I don't know how qualia are
>> generated.
>>
>> On Monday, 6 May 2019 19:37:51 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> Your turn. Is the theory of general relativity true?  I know your
>>> answer. And the fact that you consider telepath and reincarnation to be
>>> ideas to take more seriously than general relativity tells me what I need
>>> to know.
>>>
>>> You also ignored my point about how carbon monoxide deaths disprove your
>>> prediction.
>>>
>>> --
>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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
without roofs. I don't know how you can be so certain you're right when you
don't even know how your theory works.

Terren

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:37 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 anymore a conceptual construct, but an element of reality.
>
> Telepathy and recincarnation on the other hand are true because they are
> phenomena directly related to consciousness. It might seem "impossible" to
> you because you have an upside down logic in which you start from an
> invented "physical world" in which beings are "bodies separated spatially"
> and of course that from that fantasy that you create it seems impossible
> for the "soul" to move to another "body separated spatially". But once you
> use the problem downside up logic, you realize that consciousness is all
> there is so there are no more "bodies". There being no more bodies, there
> would be no "soul" to move from one "body" to another. It will just be the
> same consciousnesses that experiences different qualia. And the experience
> of different qualia is the most mundane phenomena that there can be.
>
> Regarding you carbon monoxide, I already told you that evolutionary
> reasons for qualia generation is only part of the mechanism, since there
> are also new qualia that we experience each moment of our lives that
> clearly don't appear as a consequence of life-or-death situation. If you
> want to hear the magic words, here they are: I don't know how qualia are
> generated.
>
> On Monday, 6 May 2019 19:37:51 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Your turn. Is the theory of general relativity true?  I know your answer.
>> And the fact that you consider telepath and reincarnation to be ideas to
>> take more seriously than general relativity tells me what I need to know.
>>
>> You also ignored my point about how carbon monoxide deaths disprove your
>> prediction.
>>
>> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 anymore a conceptual construct, but an element of reality.

Telepathy and recincarnation on the other hand are true because they are 
phenomena directly related to consciousness. It might seem "impossible" to 
you because you have an upside down logic in which you start from an 
invented "physical world" in which beings are "bodies separated spatially" 
and of course that from that fantasy that you create it seems impossible 
for the "soul" to move to another "body separated spatially". But once you 
use the problem downside up logic, you realize that consciousness is all 
there is so there are no more "bodies". There being no more bodies, there 
would be no "soul" to move from one "body" to another. It will just be the 
same consciousnesses that experiences different qualia. And the experience 
of different qualia is the most mundane phenomena that there can be.

Regarding you carbon monoxide, I already told you that evolutionary reasons 
for qualia generation is only part of the mechanism, since there are also 
new qualia that we experience each moment of our lives that clearly don't 
appear as a consequence of life-or-death situation. If you want to hear the 
magic words, here they are: I don't know how qualia are generated.

On Monday, 6 May 2019 19:37:51 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Your turn. Is the theory of general relativity true?  I know your answer. 
> And the fact that you consider telepath and reincarnation to be ideas to 
> take more seriously than general relativity tells me what I need to know.
>
> You also ignored my point about how carbon monoxide deaths disprove your 
> prediction.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 answer.
And the fact that you consider telepath and reincarnation to be ideas to
take more seriously than general relativity tells me what I need to know.

You also ignored my point about how carbon monoxide deaths disprove your
prediction.

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:18 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 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 Randi's challenge. Your
> prediction - that conscious beings will spontaneously create qualia that
> can save their lives, and then pass that ability on to other
> consciousnesses, is not just absurd but demonstrably false: why do so many
> people die of carbon monoxide poisoning?  Your prediction means people
> would create new qualia that allows them to detect it and live another day
> - and then this trait would be passed on somehow. But here we are, nobody
> can detect it and as a result, many people die every year.
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 Randi's challenge. Your
prediction - that conscious beings will spontaneously create qualia that
can save their lives, and then pass that ability on to other
consciousnesses, is not just absurd but demonstrably false: why do so many
people die of carbon monoxide poisoning?  Your prediction means people
would create new qualia that allows them to detect it and live another day
- and then this trait would be passed on somehow. But here we are, nobody
can detect it and as a result, many people die every year.


On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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:
>
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[John Clark]

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
does. I haven't heard your views on spoon bending, flying saucer men armed
with anal probes, ghosts, bigfoot, virgin birth or astrology yet but I can
make a educated guess.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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, quite a few counter-intuitive things have been proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt through the scientific enterprise. Gravitational
lensing

is an example of something that proves the highly counter-intuitive theory
of general relativity. According to you though, general relativity can be
dismissed, but reincarnation cannot. Does evidence count for anything?

Terren

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:23 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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:
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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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.




On Sun, May 5, 2019, 4:15 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 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?


Why did it take all of human history for someone to evolve to see 
that?  Seems like that would have come in handy billions of times in 
the past. If you say that such people don't pass down to future 
generations the ability to see the roulette wheel of destiny, then you 
can hardly call it evolution.



On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 6:16 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> wrote:


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 receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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?

Why did it take all of human history for someone to evolve to see that?
Seems like that would have come in handy billions of times in the past. If
you say that such people don't pass down to future generations the ability
to see the roulette wheel of destiny, then you can hardly call it evolution.


On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 6:16 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 and consider your 
ideas as possible, you may want to see my closed-mindedness as the 
kind of barrier you'll have to overcome with most people. For 
instance, one sure-fire way to turn people off is to tell them 
everything they know is wrong, and then offer them nothing useful in 
return.


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 prediction in a way you'd be ok 
with, then there's potentially other ways we can test it. How about: 
"conscious beings on the cusp of death will create new qualia in 
circumstances in which that qualia would enable them to survive." Do 
you accept that?


I suggest we see whether Cosmin can create the qualia of seeing gamma 
rays.  It would a useful sense around a nuclear reactor.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 food, but in case he doesn't see colors you make a 
back-up plan of saving the dog, your experiment will not work, because 
you will not create a life-or-death situation, you will just create a 
life-or-life situation. The think about consciousness experiments is 
that they don't allow faking. So I'm really curious how you will 
design that experiment in order to not fake the workings of 
nature/consciousness.


What is this "saving the dog".  The dog will create the qualia of color 
and so will not starve.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 prediction in a way you'd be ok with, then
>> there's potentially other ways we can test it. How about: "conscious beings
>> on the cusp of death will create new qualia in circumstances in which that
>> qualia would enable them to survive." Do you accept that?
>>
>> Ok, and how do you generate the cusp of death ?
>

The good news is that you and I don't have to. It happens in reality all
the time. We just need to identify situations in which people or animals
*have* survived because they were able to create new qualia, in a way that
the null hypothesis wouldn't predict (like with your example with the dog).
Alternatively, we can identify situations where people or animals did not
survive but could have if they were able to create the qualia necessary...
in which case your prediction would be disproven.

For example, dogs are still color blind. Why is that?  It's certainly the
case that probably millions, even hundreds of millions of dogs have starved
to death throughout history. It doesn't seem likely that your scenario has
never come up in all of those cases. I'm sure there's been blind people
who've starved to death because they couldn't locate food that might have
been available to them if only they could see. Why didn't they create that
qualia?  For that matter, take every human that ever starved to death. Why
didn't they create the qualia of being nourished by dirt?

Terren

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 
> want as many people to read and consider your ideas as possible, you may 
> want to see my closed-mindedness as the kind of barrier you'll have to 
> overcome with most people. For instance, one sure-fire way to turn people 
> off is to tell them everything they know is wrong, and then offer them 
> nothing useful in return. 
>

It is not the duty of the author to do psychoanalysis with people. The 
author only puts the truth out-there. Open minded people will read it. 
Close minded people will have to solve their psychological problems first. 

>
> 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 prediction in a way you'd be ok with, then there's 
> potentially other ways we can test it. How about: "conscious beings on the 
> cusp of death will create new qualia in circumstances in which that qualia 
> would enable them to survive." Do you accept that?
>
> Ok, and how do you generate the cusp of death ? 

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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
want to see my closed-mindedness as the kind of barrier you'll have to
overcome with most people. For instance, one sure-fire way to turn people
off is to tell them everything they know is wrong, and then offer them
nothing useful in return.

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 prediction in a way you'd be ok with, then there's
potentially other ways we can test it. How about: "conscious beings on the
cusp of death will create new qualia in circumstances in which that qualia
would enable them to survive." Do you accept that?

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 10:10 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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 self-reference
>>> finds objects in itself and identifies with those objects. "Existence" is
>>> basically that property that makes things with definite properties: red is
>>> red, sweet is sweet, etc. So it is a rather precise definition.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think 'precise' means what you think it means.
>>
>
> Yes, is does. Red is red 100%. Physics itself cannot obtain such precises
> measurements in its most state of the art experiments.
>
>>
>>
>>> Nevertheless, self-reference itself is unformalizable. Self-reference
>>> neither exists nor not-exists.
>>>
>>
>> The first sentence is false. And the second sentence is neither true nor
>> false. It is meaningless.
>>
>
> I strongly recommend you, if not my book, then at least the "The Emergent
> Structure of Consciousness" and the "The Self-Referential Aspect of
> Consciousness" papers. Then you will understand what exactly is
> self-reference and why exactly the only way it can be described is that it
> neither exists nor not-exists. You can then even go on my latest paper "The
> Quale of Time" to see that time itself is also self-referential. How aware
> are you of Husserl's writings about the retentional nature of time ? If you
> are aware, then you would know that you can only get the retention if you
> are dealing with unformal dynamics.
>
> Alternatively, you can read this article that some guy posted on Bernardo
> Kastrup "Metaphysical Speculations" group:
> https://sites.google.com/site/nondualistlogic/tetralemmic-polarity which
> also deals with similar indeas about unformality.
>
>>
>>
>>> And depending on what other characteristics this peculiar state of
>>> affairs fully entails that consciousness later on displays on its own
>>> certain characteristics, including evolution that might not necessarily be
>>> part of consciousness per se. This is where the difficulties lie: in
>>> understanding what unformal entities actually can do, what kind of powers
>>> do they have.
>>>
>>
>> I can't make any sense out of this.
>>
>
> That's why I recommend you do some readings before. That's why papers are
> created: to give the information, and then discussion groups to discuss
> those informations. Otherwise, if you don't read the papers, you would live
> with the impression that people say random things on the discussion groups
> (clearly so really do say random things, like living AIs).
>
>>
>> Look, I think you made some progress when you gave a prediction. It
>> really crystallizes your ideas. I now know that you really mean it when you
>> say the physical world doesn't exist. You think that a dog will
>> spontaneously create the ability to see color when it's starving to death.
>> I think that's absurd. Would you be willing to place an actual bet with me
>> on that, say $100?  We can figure out later how to settle the bet in a way
>> that doesn't involve killing a dog... I would just like to know you're
>> willing to put your money where your mouth is.
>>
>> Of course, but you would need precise conditions for that to happen. For
> example, you mention about colorblind in your last post. There are cases of
> colorblind synesthesists that see what they call "martian colors". Probably
> those "martian colors" are actually colors that normal people see, but they
> don't. Nevertheless, they are able to see them, not because
> "electromagnetic radiations excites cells in the eyes", but because meaning
> excites their consciousness. And when the meaning of letter A appears in
> their consciousness, that meaning will be seen as a "martian color". Colors
> are meaning, they have nothing to do with 

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 
saving the dog, your experiment will not work, because you will not create 
a life-or-death situation, you will just create a life-or-life situation. 
The think about consciousness experiments is that they don't allow faking. 
So I'm really curious how you will design that experiment in order to not 
fake the workings of nature/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 self-reference 
>> finds objects in itself and identifies with those objects. "Existence" is 
>> basically that property that makes things with definite properties: red is 
>> red, sweet is sweet, etc. So it is a rather precise definition. 
>>
>
> I don't think 'precise' means what you think it means.
>

Yes, is does. Red is red 100%. Physics itself cannot obtain such precises 
measurements in its most state of the art experiments.

>  
>
>> Nevertheless, self-reference itself is unformalizable. Self-reference 
>> neither exists nor not-exists. 
>>
>
> The first sentence is false. And the second sentence is neither true nor 
> false. It is meaningless.
>

I strongly recommend you, if not my book, then at least the "The Emergent 
Structure of Consciousness" and the "The Self-Referential Aspect of 
Consciousness" papers. Then you will understand what exactly is 
self-reference and why exactly the only way it can be described is that it 
neither exists nor not-exists. You can then even go on my latest paper "The 
Quale of Time" to see that time itself is also self-referential. How aware 
are you of Husserl's writings about the retentional nature of time ? If you 
are aware, then you would know that you can only get the retention if you 
are dealing with unformal dynamics.

Alternatively, you can read this article that some guy posted on Bernardo 
Kastrup "Metaphysical Speculations" group: 
https://sites.google.com/site/nondualistlogic/tetralemmic-polarity which 
also deals with similar indeas about unformality.

>  
>
>> And depending on what other characteristics this peculiar state of 
>> affairs fully entails that consciousness later on displays on its own 
>> certain characteristics, including evolution that might not necessarily be 
>> part of consciousness per se. This is where the difficulties lie: in 
>> understanding what unformal entities actually can do, what kind of powers 
>> do they have.
>>
>
> I can't make any sense out of this. 
>

That's why I recommend you do some readings before. That's why papers are 
created: to give the information, and then discussion groups to discuss 
those informations. Otherwise, if you don't read the papers, you would live 
with the impression that people say random things on the discussion groups 
(clearly so really do say random things, like living AIs). 

>
> Look, I think you made some progress when you gave a prediction. It really 
> crystallizes your ideas. I now know that you really mean it when you say 
> the physical world doesn't exist. You think that a dog will spontaneously 
> create the ability to see color when it's starving to death. I think that's 
> absurd. Would you be willing to place an actual bet with me on that, say 
> $100?  We can figure out later how to settle the bet in a way that doesn't 
> involve killing a dog... I would just like to know you're willing to put 
> your money where your mouth is.
>
> Of course, but you would need precise conditions for that to happen. For 
example, you mention about colorblind in your last post. There are cases of 
colorblind synesthesists that see what they call "martian colors". Probably 
those "martian colors" are actually colors that normal people see, but they 
don't. Nevertheless, they are able to see them, not because 
"electromagnetic radiations excites cells in the eyes", but because meaning 
excites their consciousness. And when the meaning of letter A appears in 
their consciousness, that meaning will be seen as a "martian color". Colors 
are meaning, they have nothing to do with "electromagnetic radiation". So 
if a colorblind animal that is starving receives some meaning that can help 
him survive, he will see that meaning in colors. Cones and rodes in the 
eyes will only later on in his offsprings will appear in order probably to 
make the process of seeing colors more effectively, so that for example 
colors wouldn't have to appear anymore only when you are starving to death, 
but they should appear all the time, because they are good from an 
evolutionary point of view.

So go ahead, to that experiment, I'll give you that 100$. But if you don't 
subject the dog to real life-or-death situation I don't know how you will 
bring new qualia into his consciousness.
 

> You also never answered my question about where language comes from. 
>  
>
I also said that life-and-death evolutionary constraints might not be the 
only reasons qualia appear. After all, new qualia appear every moment of 
our lives. So there are some other things at work as well.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving 

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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
ideas, you complicate your map. Once in a while, hopefully, you look up
from your map and ask, "does this map accurately describe reality?" But if
there's a big hole in your map, you don't get to say, well, reality has a
big hole in it.


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:59 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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" 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 objects. "Existence" is
> basically that property that makes things with definite properties: red is
> red, sweet is sweet, etc. So it is a rather precise definition.
>

I don't think 'precise' means what you think it means.


> Nevertheless, self-reference itself is unformalizable. Self-reference
> neither exists nor not-exists.
>

The first sentence is false. And the second sentence is neither true nor
false. It is meaningless.


> And depending on what other characteristics this peculiar state of affairs
> fully entails that consciousness later on displays on its own certain
> characteristics, including evolution that might not necessarily be part of
> consciousness per se. This is where the difficulties lie: in understanding
> what unformal entities actually can do, what kind of powers do they have.
>

I can't make any sense out of this.

Look, I think you made some progress when you gave a prediction. It really
crystallizes your ideas. I now know that you really mean it when you say
the physical world doesn't exist. You think that a dog will spontaneously
create the ability to see color when it's starving to death. I think that's
absurd. Would you be willing to place an actual bet with me on that, say
$100?  We can figure out later how to settle the bet in a way that doesn't
involve killing a dog... I would just like to know you're willing to put
your money where your mouth is.

You also never answered my question about where language comes from.


>
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 23:00:30 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>  And then once you assume it, you contradict your statement that only
>> consciousness exists.
>>
> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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" 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 
basically that property that makes things with definite properties: red is 
red, sweet is sweet, etc. So it is a rather precise definition. 
Nevertheless, self-reference itself is unformalizable. Self-reference 
neither exists nor not-exists. And depending on what other characteristics 
this peculiar state of affairs fully entails that consciousness later on 
displays on its own certain characteristics, including evolution that might 
not necessarily be part of consciousness per se. This is where the 
difficulties lie: in understanding what unformal entities actually can do, 
what kind of powers do they have.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 23:00:30 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>  And then once you assume it, you contradict your statement that only 
> consciousness exists.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 evolution
in the first place based on first principles. Evolution requires death and
reproduction, neither of which follow from the statement that only
consciousness exists.

For that matter, neither does language. Where does language come from?  I
know you're going to say evolution, and then I'm going to remind you that
evolution doesn't follow from your theory, that you have to assume it. And
then once you assume it, you contradict your statement that only
consciousness exists.



On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:16 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 principles" and what not ?
> I don't consider the evolutionary aspect of consciousness to be post-hoc.
> Actually, I consider that even if we didn't have the idea of evolution in
> our culture, we would have still arrived at it solely by looking at qualia,
> though most likely much slower. I think that even if you are to take some
> humans  and isolate them in a totally artificial environment, without
> plants and animals from which to derive the idea of evolution, they would
> ultimately still arrive at the idea of evolution merely by paying careful
> attention to their qualia. One way to do this is to notice that
> intellectual qualia always have the form of answers to questions. We are
> always first in a consciousness state that we can call a question ("What
> should I eat today ?"), and then that conscious state leads to another
> state called "answer" ("I will eat some fries."). Starting from this aspect
> of consciousness, namely that the quale "I will eat some fries." appears as
> a consequence of the quale "What should I eat today ?" will make those
> isolated people getting to the idea that all qualia should have appeared
> this way, and since it wasn't them that asked the question whose answer was
> the quale of red, then it must have been someone else that did it. And
> therefore, with clearly considerably more difficulties than us, will arrive
> at the theory of evolution.
>
> Now, you also mention the fact that evolution requires time. And my
> response to this is that indeed this is how it appears. But the fact that
> time is just a quale in consciousness, implies that we currently don't
> understand evolution properly, not that what I'm saying about consciousness
> is wrong. Actually, it might even be the case that those isolated people
> from the above example, would arrive at a better understanding of evolution
> than us. And then, if they were to be brought to Earth and showed them the
> plants and the animals, they will say: "Ah... but of course!... this is
> just a special case of evolution.". It is possible that we are being
> mislead into believing that evolution is something else than it actually
> is, because of the too many details that we have access to. A more purified
> view would show us a different view of evolution. And indeed I'm working on
> this, on trying to understand what exactly evolution is if you take out the
> physical time.
>
> Making a prediction: An animal that only sees shades-of-gray that is about
> to die of starvation, will bring into existence the qualia of red and green
> in order to see the food.
>
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 21:05:30 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> exists. Evolution depends on some kind of objective state-of-affairs that
>> exists outside of an individual consciousness, because in order for those
>> dynamics to work, some consciousnesses must persist and some must perish.
>> Also, you keep claiming that time doesn't exist (ok by me) but evolution
>> requires time.
>>
>> Make one prediction about new kinds of qualia that will emerge based on
>> your so-called evolutionary dynamics or whatever. Come on Cosmin Camping,
>> you can do 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this 

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 principles" and what not ?
I don't consider the evolutionary aspect of consciousness to be post-hoc. 
Actually, I consider that even if we didn't have the idea of evolution in 
our culture, we would have still arrived at it solely by looking at qualia, 
though most likely much slower. I think that even if you are to take some 
humans  and isolate them in a totally artificial environment, without 
plants and animals from which to derive the idea of evolution, they would 
ultimately still arrive at the idea of evolution merely by paying careful 
attention to their qualia. One way to do this is to notice that 
intellectual qualia always have the form of answers to questions. We are 
always first in a consciousness state that we can call a question ("What 
should I eat today ?"), and then that conscious state leads to another 
state called "answer" ("I will eat some fries."). Starting from this aspect 
of consciousness, namely that the quale "I will eat some fries." appears as 
a consequence of the quale "What should I eat today ?" will make those 
isolated people getting to the idea that all qualia should have appeared 
this way, and since it wasn't them that asked the question whose answer was 
the quale of red, then it must have been someone else that did it. And 
therefore, with clearly considerably more difficulties than us, will arrive 
at the theory of evolution.

Now, you also mention the fact that evolution requires time. And my 
response to this is that indeed this is how it appears. But the fact that 
time is just a quale in consciousness, implies that we currently don't 
understand evolution properly, not that what I'm saying about consciousness 
is wrong. Actually, it might even be the case that those isolated people 
from the above example, would arrive at a better understanding of evolution 
than us. And then, if they were to be brought to Earth and showed them the 
plants and the animals, they will say: "Ah... but of course!... this is 
just a special case of evolution.". It is possible that we are being 
mislead into believing that evolution is something else than it actually 
is, because of the too many details that we have access to. A more purified 
view would show us a different view of evolution. And indeed I'm working on 
this, on trying to understand what exactly evolution is if you take out the 
physical time.

Making a prediction: An animal that only sees shades-of-gray that is about 
to die of starvation, will bring into existence the qualia of red and green 
in order to see the food.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 21:05:30 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 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 
> exists. Evolution depends on some kind of objective state-of-affairs that 
> exists outside of an individual consciousness, because in order for those 
> dynamics to work, some consciousnesses must persist and some must perish. 
> Also, you keep claiming that time doesn't exist (ok by me) but evolution 
> requires time. 
>
> Make one prediction about new kinds of qualia that will emerge based on 
> your so-called evolutionary dynamics or whatever. Come on Cosmin Camping, 
> you can do 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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?

Brent

with the reasons that those people invoke to make their killing 
instincts noble.


Long live the scientific ayan race!


On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:

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.

--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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
exists. Evolution depends on some kind of objective state-of-affairs that
exists outside of an individual consciousness, because in order for those
dynamics to work, some consciousnesses must persist and some must perish.
Also, you keep claiming that time doesn't exist (ok by me) but evolution
requires time.

Make one prediction about new kinds of qualia that will emerge based on
your so-called evolutionary dynamics or whatever. Come on Cosmin Camping,
you can do it!

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:37 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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 those adaptations. The qualia that are present 
in a particular consciousness cannot be predicted, because they always 
appear as answers to evolutionary contexts.


But how do they evolve. Is it Darwinian evolution in which there is 
reproduction with variation and reproduction outpaces resources so that 
there is a struggle for survival and natural selection?  Or are you just 
using "evolve" in the general sense of change?


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 does not admit questions, explanations, or
predictions (i.e., yours), should not be trusted or relied upon, because
beyond the obvious reason that it has no epistemic use, it can be used as a
tool by those who wish to wield authority with no accountability.

It's one thing I sort of admire about the end-of-the-world loonies (e.g.
Harold Camping) who actually predict the date the world will end. At least
they're willing to stake their reputations on something that will
definitely happen or not happen. So that's something for you to aspire to.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:36 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> 
>
>
>
> 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 live the scientific ayan race!
>
>
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 live the scientific ayan race!


On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 saying
that it's indistinguishable from one that does. You come across as a true
believer in a set of ideas that cannot be tested, explains nothing, and
anyone who doesn't accept them is a fool. Textbook religious evangelism.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:54 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 those adaptations. The qualia that are present in a particular 
consciousness cannot be predicted, because they always appear as answers to 
evolutionary contexts.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 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 to use it to actually explain anything.
>
> A moment's thought will show you this is indistinguishable from:
>
>- only my consciousness exists
>- angels and demons exist
>- the world appears the way it does because that's what the angels and 
>demons want me to experience
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[John Clark]

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.
>>
>

>
> *Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated.*


After that comment can anybody around here have any doubts about the
existence or nonexistence of a brain in Cosmin Visan's head?

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 machine, prove from mechanism + that 
theory of machine, that red is a non formalisable experience, like actually any 
first person experience. 



> 
> Good luck!

You asked me something which my theory, which is not mind, but the one by the 
universal machine itself, can prove the impossibility.

Bruno




> 
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:37:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I know you will not do it, but formalising in first order logic would clarify 
> a lot. 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 to use it to actually explain anything.

A moment's thought will show you this is indistinguishable from:

   - only my consciousness exists
   - angels and demons exist
   - the world appears the way it does because that's what the angels and
   demons want me to experience

Unless you can say what kind of fact you could discover that would
invalidate your theory, it's a hard no for me.

Terren

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:12 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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 phenomenological analysis, you get to the conclusion
> that the proper definition for the concept of "existence" is the
> looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, therefore existence can only by
> ontologically subjective, so consciousness is all there is.
>
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 01:48:52 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> 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*.
>>
>> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there is, 
>> because for any fact X that you assume that you discover, that X is a 
>> thought in consciousness.
>>
>>
>> But I don’t see why this invalidate that there would be something more 
>> than my consciousness, for example the possible consciousness of some 
>> other. 
>>
>>
> Yes, there are other consciousness. But that's all, because existence 
> itself can only be ontologically subjective. 
>
>
>
> Why? 
>
> In particular, if you grant the consciousness of other person, that 
> consciousness is not personal-subjective, for me. I need some amount of 
> “independent reality” from me to allow some other to exist.
>

Indeed the problem of personal identity seems to me one of the hardest 
problems of consciousness. I don't know what keeps me stable during the 
course of my life, or what keeps me separated from others. But as you know, 
in telepathies, you get to unify with other consciousnesses and experience 
common qualia. I don't think though that this changes the definition of 
"existence" that I'm giving. The fact that I don't experience all the 
qualia that happen in the world at the present moment, doesn't change the 
fact that those qualia have an ontologically subjective mode of being. It 
might even be the case that, given the fact that there is no objective 
time, there is also no coherent way of talking about "simultaneous" 
consciousnesses that *at this very moment* are outside of me and I'm not 
experiencing them. It might be the case that *at this very moment* no other 
consciousness exists, though they do exist, but not *at this very moment*. 
So the definition of "existence" that I'm giving, remains.

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 first order logic would 
> clarify a lot. 
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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 is, because 
>> for any fact X that you assume that you discover, that X is a thought in 
>> consciousness.
> 
> But I don’t see why this invalidate that there would be something more than 
> my consciousness, for example the possible consciousness of some other. 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are other consciousness. But that's all, because existence itself 
> can only be ontologically subjective. 


Why? 

In particular, if you grant the consciousness of other person, that 
consciousness is not personal-subjective, for me. I need some amount of 
“independent reality” from me to allow some other to exist.





> 
> 
>> I don't see where I borrow anything from materialist ideas. Evolution is 
>> deducible directly from looking at qualia. There are no "bodies" that 
>> evolve, but consciousnesses that evolve.
> 
> That is what you have to elaborate. I can interpret this favourably (in the 
> mechanist frame) or not. It is a bit too much vague, as I expect, actually, 
> from a theory which assumes consciousness.
> 
> Just look at human psychology. It is solely for survival and reproduction. 
> All our emotion qualia serve these purposes.

? (That would make consciousness not being fundamental, contrary to your axiom)


> For example look at the users which their beliefs are being threatened how 
> they become aggressive. This is because instinctively they feel that their 
> alpha male domination is being threatened by another male, so they jump to 
> kill him. So all these emotion qualia couldn't have otherwise appeared just 
> by evolution.

Why? 


> All the evolutionary history is included in present day qualia that we have. 
> If you want to find out how the Earth was 1 billion years ago, ask yourself 
> what does the smell of pineapple means for example, and you will find that 
> the quale of pineapple smell has a particular evolutionary reason why it is 
> the way it is.

?

That is unclear to me. I know you will not do it, but formalising in first 
order logic would clarify a lot. Now, you can’t do that if mechanism is true, 
because consciousness is necessarily not a formal concept, but a semantical 
one, and the whole point of formalising is to not start from a semantic. You 
seem to condemn yourself into a fuzzy theory.

Frankly, consciousness and matter is what I want to explain/understand, and the 
mechanist assumption makes possible to build a testable theory, so let us do 
the test, and only invoke things like god, consciousness, reality, or alien in 
last ressort, if the experience violate all expressible theories.

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

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 phenomenological analysis, you get to the conclusion 
that the proper definition for the concept of "existence" is the 
looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, therefore existence can only by 
ontologically subjective, so consciousness is all there is.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 01:48:52 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 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*.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

[Terren Suydam]

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 all there
> is.
>
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 01:41:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Who says I believe in a physical world?
>>
>> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.