> On 25 Apr 2019, at 09:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > That's precisely what exists: experiences.
I agree that experience exists, but I want to explain them by something simpler concept. With mechanism, we are forced to explain both the psychological experience and the physical experiences (and experiments) from arithmetic. It works rather well until now. To put experience in the ontology seems like to avoid trying to explain them. > > And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, > existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and > thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence Emergence from what? How? Why? How could “I am” be an object? It is a proposition about some possible object “I”, how do you define “I”? > where you have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the first > object is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red, But why would you see red in the first place? > the logical structure of the state of seeing red is: "I am red."/"I exist as > red". (of course, is more complicated, since it includes all the previous > levels, so it is actually something like: "I am vividness, diversity, memory, > time, black-and-white, shades-of-gray, red.”) This assumes so many things, that it is a bit unclear to me. As I said, 99,9% of theoretical computer science is based on the notion of self-reference, and incompleteness imposes all the nuances already found by Plato, so we get a very standard classical theory of mind, which explains most aspect of consciousness and the “illusion” of the physical reality, and why the illusion does last and why it is first person sharable (making the physical reality looking real from inside) Bruno > > On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:48:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >> <everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately >> knowable. I see red, thus red exists. > > I see red, so certainly the experience of seeing red exists. I can agree with > that. But it is not existence which I see, it is my own consciousness. > > “Existence” has no meaning if we don’t say what exists, or it means, if taken > in your sense, that you define “existence” by consciousness, but that is not > the usual sense of existence. > > What I mean, is that we say that existence is immediately knowable, people > will me mislead into believing that what we see exist. If I see something > red, “seing red” exists, but it does not mean that it exists a red thing, > only an experience of red can be said to exist. I might see a red unicorn, > for example, in some dream. > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
