@John. If you would have actually read the paper, you would have seen that solipsism is not true.
In order to make things simpler, I will only reply to people that actually read the paper and are truly interested in discussing the ideas. Otherwise is just waste of time. And if you have time to waste your life, well I don't have time to waste my life. On Thursday 27 June 2024 at 15:10:37 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:18 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > Correctly, self-reference cannot be spoken of. But even saying >> “self-reference cannot be spoken of” is an utterance about it, so not even >> such a sentence can be uttered. >> > > Very clearly the above statement is false because "I" am capable of > uttering the word "I" and "I" I am even capable of uttering an entire > self-referential sentence such as "I am hungry" that "my" fellow human > beings do not seem to find to be incoherent wordplay. Yes, self reference > is capable of producing logical paradoxes, but it can also produce > statements that are paradox free and extremely useful. I don't believe > human language would even be possible if self reference was removed from > it. Getting rid of self reference entirely is throwing out the baby with > the bathwater. > >> >> *> Some might wonder, if we cannot speak about it, why are we sure that >> it is the one that brings consciousness into existence. The reason we can >> do this is because we observe the phenomenology of qualia* >> > > We? I know from direct experience (which outranks everything, even the > scientific method) that I am conscious and capable of observing the > phenomenon of qualia and I have no need of an axiom to do so, but I > cannot do the same thing with regard to you or to any third party. However > I simply could not function if I really believed that solipsism was true > and I was the only conscious being in the universe, therefore I have no > choice but to take it as an axiom that I can correctly deduce the existence > of consciousness in something other than myself by observing intelligent > behavior. In other words, it is a brute fact that consciousness is the > way data feels when it is being processed *intelligently.* > > >> *> (like inclusion and transcendence of levels) and conclude that this is >> possible only if some entity that we call “self-reference” must “exist”." * >> " >> > > It's easy to show with ironclad logic that if consciousness exists then > that consciousness is capable of using self reference, but it's impossible > to prove if self reference exists then consciousness exists unless > additional axioms are used. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > cwz > > -- 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/b5302227-e6af-4029-8d57-630d1099eec3n%40googlegroups.com.
