Bruno, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by vitalism but if its
what I have in mind. then it "died" erroneously. I don't think
notions of qi and prana are without foundation far from it. There
is a sense in which, if vitalism died, that was a mistake but I am
not exactly sure o
it makes so much sense.
the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any
idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism.
But in my eye… the fairer judgment is that some form of idealistic
metaphysics is in fact situated a step above physicalism in
proba
> Ultimately physics is just set of well defined rules (algorithms) and
> matter and energy is just information.
How do you exactly distinguish "matter" and "energy"... what do you on
one hand consider to be "matter" and on the other consider to be
"energy. and how are both just information?
We always look away and out as it were... our assertions are a
"outlook', we are always looking away from ourselves out or towards
something else up and away or beneath and below the question is:
has an outlook? what has a figure or story of "the way things
are"? How is the perceiving instrume
Is metaphysics merely a notion that is the reversal or antithesis of
the world as we know it?
Instead of change: changelesness.
Instead of diversity or multiplicity: unity.
Instead of instability: stability
Instead of of birth and death: immortality.
Instead of complexity: simplicity.
Instead
Actually John, the more I read it the more I feel for it but some
seeming issues:
"there is an info-transfer into 'us' from the limitless complexity"
you say information-transfer, or we can rephrase it as information
processing or information reception etc. But I think "information" is
a met
John M on second examination not bad. I need to look over
it again though and see if I can reply.
On Jul 7, 8:29 am, John Mikes wrote:
> Friends:
>
> Lots of *mouse*-traps written in this and
> other*posts/preposts/repost/superposts/etc.
> *
> God? Truth? Reality? even: 'physical worl
Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean
any of it is true.
It seems to me that you are stringing together all these statements
into some kind of evidence or support for a position... a faith.
One has to understand the genealogy of such notions. one needs a
psychoanal
Bruno, is it possible that there is no "fundamental reality" or
"primary reality"... and even if there was, and it was non-
observational or non-experiential why would it matter to us?
It seems to me that reality or knowledge always implies a blind
dualism that reflects the way in which "we" (
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are
not conscious. and intellect and under
Benjay:
yes, in introducing states of meditation and lucid dreaming and drug
altered states you may perhaps hone in on the essence and nuance
of what qualifies consciousness and illuminate something of the
qualitative texture and subtly and scope of its complexity of modes or
states.
There is
John M, that was a pretty excellent performance, you should write more
on here.
On Jun 15, 12:54 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Brent,
> let me cut in with your last par:
>
> *"...There is a tendency to talk about "human-equivalent intelligence" or
> "human level intelligence" as an ultimate goal.
When we talk about consciousness we have to be specific about what
mode of consciousness we are referring to there is no
consciousness in and of itself that we are aware of so do we mean
self-consciousness, other-consciousness, dream-consciousness, form-
consciousness or phenomenological co
Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming
self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable.
something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we
cannot speak
there is some being, but I want to call this "being" into question.
what asserts or negates its e
Rex have you studied Spinoza's notion that freedom is the
recognition of necessity? If you haven't read Spinoza I would
recommend him on this free will/determinism issue.
On Jun 9, 8:00 am, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > On 09 Jun 2011, at 07:14
lol, the "pagan confusion" in this forum is exactly why the Church
thought it necessary to dogmatically formulate a creed and impose that
rigid and absolute structure on the masses.
otherwise such heathen indeterminacy and inventiveness would continue
ad infinitum.
Neo-platonism was construct
"it emerges from self-observation by relative universal
numbers. "
how could you ever prove that there are any "numbers" independent of
human thought?
are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination,
thought, and figures?
On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 07 Jun 201
it sounds like Bruno is ontologizing mathematics rather then seeing it
as merely a way of knowing or a tool for organizing, classifying,
accounting for, and navigating space-time.
On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On T
Bruno says:
"But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is
before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to
the
primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is
something
behind our observations."
can this supposed something behind our observations b
language is the most bewitching and misleading devil in existence...
it produces the illusion of knowledge.
there is a distinction between understanding and knowledge.
On Jun 7, 8:05 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pete Hughes wrote:
> > Jason,
>
> > I found this compel
Jason, you say "there is still a great deal of
activity within an anestetized mind, yet consciousness is abolished."
when you say "consciousness is abolished"... we know what you mean,
yet we do not really know what is meant by "consciousness is
abolished" meaning, we don't know what underlies
Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely
recursive, self-negating, and un-negatable.
1) "God is dead"
2) "God is reborn - as theoretical physics"
Brunoism: old wine in new bottles.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everyt
indeed.
there are a) misperceptions b) perceptions c) lack of perceptions d)
impossibility of perception e) pseudo-perceptions.
It is interesting to check out what Penrose is talking about when he
talks about Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in theoretical physics.
Fashion: String Theory
Faith: Quant
if reality was known, it wouldn't have to be stated... unless there
was a mis-perception that needed to be corrected hence our theorem
tautologies are evidence that reality is not known otherwise it
would not need to be doubly and secondly stated for assurance and
clarification that is
comp immaterialism: "I am dreaming that all numbers are dreaming and
I don't know it".
On Jun 7, 7:32 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> > I guess you mean some sort of "spiritualism" for immateria
"Your brain contains information received by the senses, it is a
system
which can enter many different states based on that information "
It is so amazing to me how blind people are who actually believe this
clearly ridiculous notion.
"information" as used by geneticists and brain-scientists is a
Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group...
On Jun 6, 10:16 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> >> How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in
> >> a deterministic co
Jason: "I can easily prove to
you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything
at
all"
It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here.
I thought we did away with these classical metaphysical speculations.
Did you not read Kant?
You may be able to "prove"
Rex: "Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good,
maybe
it’s bad."
is not our life essentially "on rails" i think we should utterly
abolish the notion of any teleology, destination, or end.
there is no end abolish the notion of end in endlessness or in
annihilation
Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little
critique:
"1. Explanation is subordinate to description.
2. Description is subordinate to observation.
3. Observation is subordinate to experience.
4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience."
you distingu
the failure of society or civilization is in its attempt to "figure
things out"... to come up with a coherent, absolutely persuasive and
complete picture-form of things.. rather then to "figure out" how
to enjoy its existence. it focuses on the probably futile effort
to figure out what exi
I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here Bruno is
too, nevertheless he gives me a headache.
even if he was right, I hope hes wrong.
On Jun 5, 11:19 pm, Felix Hoenikker wrote:
> Has anyone watched the movie "Contact", in which the structure of the
> universe was encoded in the tr
Don't let Bruno misrepresent Plato as a fanciful sounding idiot
plato was smart, real smart that is why he never had a stable or
definitive theory of forms it was just something he was developing
and playing with in so far as we know and he was the harshest
critic of it.
and if you
"1) More is answered by:
A: "Math -> Matter -> Minds" (or as Bruno suggests "Math -> Minds ->
Matter") than by
B: "Matter -> Minds -> Math", or
C: "Minds -> (Matter, Math)". "
You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise
simultaneously
or that perhaps they are all essentially the
Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical
seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless
absurdities
it started with a response to this guys ridiculous assertions: "The
very
definition of consciousness: "having awareness of ones own thoughts
and
how do you leap from non-doer to non-doing and unconsciousness?
On Jul 3, 10:30 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:32 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> > "if you are thinking about consciousness, then what else could it have been
> > but consciousness that caused you to think about it"
>
> >
"Mathematics is causally inert. Yet it's existence is debatable and
it's
certainly interesting to discuss."
the problem with mathematics is that it lacks potency, in actuality,
in and of itself. Sound exhibits tremendous potency. Do you think of
mathematics as a subset of thought/language?
On Ju
"And in any case, the elan vital was
endlessly debate for centuries and was eventually discarded as
nonexistent."
perhaps erroneously... such as perhaps "ether" was erroneously
discarded. Perhaps many things were erroneously negated Jung talks
of "psychic forces" it seems like a evocative and
Bruno, what makes you think that mathematics can apply to anything
beyond the physical world, is not mathematics restricted to the domain
of the physical world
it doesn't apply to the qualitative metaphysical domain of anima-
psyche.
On Jul 3, 9:54 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I have no proble
this might arouse your interest a bit but remember Nietzsche's
critique of Plato is comprehensive and voluminous, utterly
unprecedented in its breath and depth:
How the True WorldFinally Became An Fable:
The History of an Error
1. The true world -- attainable for the sage, the pious, the virt
“By platonism I just mean the idea that ideas are primary and matter
is
generated by the ideas.”
So rather than ideas being generated by some deterministic and
mechanical materialism… which would be absurd…. You invert the
proposition? Do you literally mean matter is generated by ideas? In
some dir
“It sound more like you are reifing body and system.”
Would you rather me rarefy it?
“Consciousness here and now is accepted by many as the most
undoubtable
truth”
That to which you point by the indicator consciousness, observe that…
it is not a clear and defined perception, it is not a clearly
del
"We can never experience pure consciousness because we can never
silence the
continuous influx of sensory data;" This is debatable, I have heard of
a certain toxic substance extracted from fogs in Haiti, that if
administered, results in a effect that is said to be a total
dislocation and abstractio
I just realized that for some reason only half of these posts show up
in my e-mail…
Bruno, you speak of self-consciousness… do you mean body-image? Or do
you mean abstract self-recognition? Or the tendency towards false
identification? Or body relation/identification in a combative
framework?
It s
> I think Descartes HAD to include the soul into his 'human' unit to escape
> from Inquisition and that is why he anticipated the "complexity" in our
> time's idea - that includes the body and *mind* with its bi sided influences
> as a body-soul dualism. (I don't want to start a battle on this).
lieve in a phenomenology
> of mind where I think we need a phenomenology of matter.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal
> > wrote:
>
> > On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudon
subtler order of
preconditions that is or needed to be in place that could account for
the subtler order of phenomena we perceive in the first person etc.
On Jul 1, 12:37 am, Constantine Pseudonymous
wrote:
> I just want to say how stupendously enthusiastic I am about this
> group and it
abstract and theological
> sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
> > is not any meta-phenomenological
I just want to say how stupendously enthusiastic I am about this
group and it needs to be reiterated VERY FEW PEOPLE REALLY
THINK in this world you guys are actually doing that, and its
blowing me away. its almost a nonexistent phenomenon in terms of
the way the world has been prese
all is number? but was there not all before number? numbers need their
objects. numbers must refer to something... the symbol must have its
substaces, even if that substaces is relatively indeterminate
independent of the symbol, or only visible via the symbol. Numbers are
a relationship between "th
is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self',
necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an
essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any
objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and
is not the negation of such an asse
nevertheless, you guys are brilliant and I'm glad to join the genuine
thinking. genuine thinking is the most radical activity on earth.
On Jun 30, 11:15 pm, Constantine Pseudonymous
wrote:
> "but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
> that map the te
"but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. "
who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
"reality" to begin with, a notion as ambigu
53 matches
Mail list logo
