Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

@Jason. Uuu... big boy beliving in Santa Claus! Way to go! On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:50:10 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> So, where is Santa Clau

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Who cares about the Turing test ? What does it have to do with being alive ? =))) On Friday 12 July 2024 at 03:09:57 UTC+3 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 7/11/2024 1:56 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > *> A rock, along with many

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

AI is just a fancy word for lonely boys to give meaning to their empty life. lol On Thursday 11 July 2024 at 13:48:19 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:08 AM Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> That [*lack of a multiply operation*] would be no problem as long as >>> the AI still had

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. On Thursday 11 July 2024 at 22:04:14 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote: > Only in the most idealized sense of Turing completeness would we argue > whether the brain is Turing complete. Neural networks are Turing complete. > > If we're

Re: Books

Uuu... is comng!!! Can't waittt!!! When? When? Next year? Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! On Thursday 11 July 2024 at 20:15:32 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: > I enjoyed Ray Kurzweil's new book The Singularity Is Nearer >

Re: Why do sad people hate so much ?

@Terren. Don't worry. Maybe one day you will find a girlfriend to save you from the inceldom. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: AI hype

@Terren. Yes, other consciousnesses. What is it that you don't understand ? On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 20:52:13 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote: > If you have no idea, then just say so. Otherwise, answer the question. > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:22 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everyt

Re: AI hype

> find the truth or not. Stop thinking yourself important. > > On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 20:34:19 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> What a tool you are... and you're seriously expecting people to read your >> paper ? Learn humility and come back. >> >> Le mar. 9

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

10, 2024 at 11:24 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > *Why do you even use the word AI ? Why can't use just use the words >> "computer program" ? Aaa... hype. Makes you look more intelligent than you >> actua

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Why do you even use the word AI ? Why can't use just use the words "computer program" ? Aaa... hype. Makes you look more intelligent than you actually are! Look at me: AI! AI! AI! Ooo so smrt! = -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: AI hype

they've experienced before that? > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 3:11 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> @Terren. Other consciousnesses. That you cannot even imagine. >> >> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 22:45:45 UTC+3 Terr

Re: Absolute freedom of speech group for consciousness discussions

Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 3:10 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> @Terren. I'm sorry for your suffering. Hope you will find a girlfriend >> soon. >> >> On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 02:40:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote: >

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

mazing. > > Le mer. 10 juil. 2024, 11:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > >> @Quentin. Sure you're certain. The internet is full of geniuses like >> yourself. Also, the fact that you are from the category that equates free &

Re: Why do sad people hate so much ?

e internet ? On Wednesday 10 July 2024 at 13:22:21 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Either you're trolling on purpose or you're genuinely stupid... hard to > tell. > > Le mer. 10 juil. 2024, 11:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit : >

Why do sad people hate so much ?

Why do sad people hate so much ? Why do they choose to express their sadness by hating random people on the internet ? Why don't they go for a walk in nature to calm down ? What do they gain by hating on the internet ? And especially since they are doing this for decades! And their condition

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

gle-neuron brain, filled with hate, spews > nothing but venom. Go back to your hate speech Google group and give us a > break. Earth is often a living hell because of hateful people like you. > > Quentin > > Le mer. 10 juil. 2024, 09:14, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < &

Re: New AI training tech is 13 times faster and 10 times more power efficient

So what ? How does AI help with anything ? It is just a gimmick. On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 21:45:51 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: > *New AI training tech is 13 times faster and 10 times more power efficient > — DeepMind's new JEST optimizes training data for impressive gains >

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

ke, Santa Claus is for > children. > > On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:58:16 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >>> *> Arguments need to

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> *> Arguments need to be made based on reason, not on robotic plug-in of >> replies.* > > > Like dismissing AI and Atomically Preci

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

@Brent. Playing with words doesn't make you smart. Quite the opposite. Maaan... you people are so boring. You have the same memes that you keep repeating over and over and over again. Zero presence of intelligent thought. Just memes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: AI hype

other > self-referencing entities? > > And, how does that explanation dispense with the idea that the (apparent) > ingesting of mushrooms caused the change in consciousness? > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 1:14 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googleg

Re: Absolute freedom of speech group for consciousness discussions

scribe that, but > "inviting" isn't one of them. > > Terren > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:46 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> I invite you to my absolute freedom of speech google group for >> consciousness discus

Absolute freedom of speech group for consciousness discussions

I invite you to my absolute freedom of speech google group for consciousness discussions: https://groups.google.com/g/consciousness-research -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 20:47:44 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 02:12, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:18 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> >>>

Re: AI hype

July 2024 at 20:34:19 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > What a tool you are... and you're seriously expecting people to read your > paper ? Learn humility and come back. > > Le mar. 9 juil. 2024, 19:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> a écrit

Re: AI hype

their own shoes. On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 19:27:15 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:50 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> @Jason. Recursion is not self-reference. If you would have read my pa

Re: AI hype

is so obvious that a 5yo kid would understand it, > that the mushrooms *do not* cause a change to my consciousness? That me > taking mushrooms an hour before the changes to my consciousness begin is > mere correlation? > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everyth

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Don't you ever get bored of this materialistic mumbo-jumbo ? When will you finally understand that brain doesn't exist ? On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 18:18:35 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 00:34, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jul

Re: AI hype

@Terren. The dream is ordered because it is a statistical effect of interacting consciousnesses. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: AI hype

On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:01 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> @Quentin @Stathis. That's where the whole magical belief in AI comes >> from, from believing that you are robots. Well.. breaking news: you are >> not! Yo

Re: AI hype

@Jason. Recursion is not self-reference. If you would have read my paper you would have seen that. On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 14:42:42 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:04 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Physical doesn't exist. "Physical" is just an idea in consciousness. On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:33:33 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 04:23, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:14 PM John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jason

Re: AI hype

. "Brain" is just a picture that you as God dreams in this dream. It doesn't actually exist. On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:24:45 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 18:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >&g

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

So, where is Santa Claus ? Also, does he bring presents to all the children in the world in 1 night ? How does he do that ? On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 07:31:46 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 6:38 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegr

Re: AI hype

omputers are magical entities where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ? On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 06:19:30 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote: > How has your understanding of computer programming helped you avoid being > victimized by AI hype? > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:19 PM 'C

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

So based on your definition, Santa Claus exists. On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 00:47:28 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 5:17 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> Brain doesn't exist. > > > Then it

AI hype

People that are victims of the AI hype neither understand computer programming nor 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

Re: [Extropolis] Ilya Sutskever ​says "Superintelligence is within reach​"

Santa Claus is alive! On Friday 21 June 2024 at 09:15:17 UTC+3 Giulio Prisco wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:18 PM John Clark wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 1:25 PM Keith Henson > wrote: > > > >> > It is my opinion that superintelligence is inevitable. Whatever > >> downsides there

Re: Ray Kurzweil: ‘We are going to expand intelligence a millionfold by 2045

Yeah, sure. Santa Claus. -- 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

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. See my papers, like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan On Monday 8 July 2024 at 23:35:12 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:04 PM John Clark wrote: > >> >> On

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

Not all claims of impossibility can be refuted with the "flying machines" argument. Arguments need to be made based on reason, not on robotic plug-in of replies. On Monday 8 July 2024 at 22:00:31 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:42 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Ev

Re: AI chatbots at ​ just 13 watts with no performance loss

Saying computers are coming closer to becoming as smart as humans is like saying that by climbing a tree you get closer to reaching the Moon. Trololol. Also, brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. This is where the whole confusion about robots reaching us comes from. For

Re: Are Philosophical Zombies possible?

Philosophical zombies are not possible, for the trivial reason that body doesn't even exist. "Body" is just an idea in consciousness. See my papers, like "How Self-Reference Builds the World": https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan On Monday 8 July 2024 at 21:23:44 UTC+3 Jason Resch

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

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 spoke

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

ust “exist”." " On Wednesday 26 June 2024 at 22:17:10 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:01 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > *> Self-reference on the other hand, is a 1st person entity >> all-throughou

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

ps://philpapers.org/archive/VISHSB.pdf>) > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:25 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> Some might wonder, if we cannot speak >> about it, why are we sure that it is the one that brings consc

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

*Entities *and *properties of > looking-back-at-itself *must be defined relative to your fundamental > monism. > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:04 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> @Terren. There is no "self" an

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

ta Claus doesn't exist. "Santa Claus" is just an idea in consciousness. etc. So we can be sure we avoid in the future any talks about non-existent entities. On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 21:06:30 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:01 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

t; - the entity upon which everything else can be built. I'm wondering how > that can be fundamental if it requires two components (self, and the > ability to reference). > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:32 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com&g

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

ote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:54 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> When will that day come when people actually first read the papers and >> then comment ? Oh, God! >> > > I read your paper.

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

When will that day come when people actually first read the papers and then comment ? Oh, God! On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 19:18:25 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

uot;self" and the capacity to "reference". Worse, defining "self" (something > to be derived) in terms of "self-reference" (fundamental) is circular. > > Terren > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@g

How Self-Reference Builds the World - my paper

I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It can be found on my philpeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: The problem with physics

Well... maybe when you are a 50 years old scientist, you can say that, but this is not the spirit in which science is teached to children or popularized to laymen. The spirit of science popularization is that it gives us the truth, and we should obey or die. If scientists are such moral

Re: The problem with physics

Thanks. I'll do. On Thursday, 21 November 2019 13:21:01 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Read *Being and Nothingness*, Jean Paul Sartre > > 691 pages - > http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Sartre/BeingAndNothingness.pdf > > @philipthrift > > -- You received this message because you are

Re: The problem with physics

What about those people that have the desire to know the truth ? What should they do with their lives ? On Thursday, 21 November 2019 11:39:56 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > To make technology: to go to the moon, to make air conditioning, > smartphones, TVs, ... > -- You received this

Re: The problem with physics

Why are we doing this ? On Thursday, 21 November 2019 10:54:59 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Models are the myths we invent to navigate nature (reality). > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider

Garbage. Cultural mumbo-jumbo. On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 12:01:14 UTC+2, Alan Grayson wrote: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: The problem with physics

What are the models the models of if not of truth ? If models are not intended to model truth, then what are they intended to do ? Create a fantastical world for World of Warcraft ? On Friday, 15 November 2019 02:03:14 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > But good luck in life finding the absolute

Re: The problem with physics

What does wf mean ? Otherwise, yes, you are right. The problem is that most people do stuff (science or other things) solely for social status. In our culture, to be scientist is seen as cool, as a hallmark of intelligence. So stupid people in order to compensate, they do what all people do

Re: Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

That's the question: is it contingent to facts about our brain ? Or is it something more fundamental about how consciousness works ? On Friday, 15 November 2019 01:52:57 UTC+2, stathisp wrote: > > > What you call the phenomenon of sense disappearance is a contingent fact > about our brain. We

Re: Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

But maybe there is a kind of experience that cannot be simulated in a dream, for reasons having to do for example with consciousnesses interactions. On Thursday, 14 November 2019 20:49:28 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > From the perspective of *experiential realism (ER)* > > >

Re: Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

When did you have sex last time ? Go get laid to relax and then come back here. Internet retards! On Thursday, 14 November 2019 20:17:21 UTC+2, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > Generally people who are not able to distinguish between a real conscious > state and a dream state need psychiatric

Distinguishing between dreams and "real world"

What would be a sure phenomenon that can help us distinguish between dreams and "real world" ? Because no matter how illogical a dream world might be, this doesn't make us realize that we are in a dream. So the randomness of a dream world is not a phenomenon that can help us distinguish between

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

Trololol. Prove that the dragons in your dreams exist! On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 20:18:45 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 9:25:11 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >> >> That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions >> between

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions between consciousnesses. On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:25:04 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting > idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

Not my consciousness, but consciousness generally. On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:06:02 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > You posit *consciousness is all there is*. > > How do you account for it having a finite existence (bounded by birth to > death of an individual)? > > With matter, there is

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

I never understood this "if consciousness is all there is, then it is allpowerful". How does that follow ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

Prove there is something outside consciousness! On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 03:27:03 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > Idealism is of course rather silly. The idea that all that exists is > consciousness is a "feel good" idea that is utterly preposterous. > > -- You received this message

Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

Probably the single big confusion that lead to the creation of materialism is the confusion between ontological states and their epistemic content. People experienced the ontological state with epistemic content of "chair outside me" and they took the epistemic content as representing an

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

Sure, but that inter-personal phenomenon derives from the workings of consciousness which remains the nature of reality. You don't create consciousness out of computations, you create computations out of consciousness. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

@Brent, is the other way around: consciousness is ontological since it exists, and the physical world is epistemic since is only a model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

@telmo, same species means same type of 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 view

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact that we are from the same species. On Monday, 16 September 2019 15:09:20 UTC+3, telmo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > > "Brain" is j

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

"Brain" is just an idea in 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 view this

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself. On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:28:11 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote: > > You mean human consciousness or something bigger? > > > -Original Message- > From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > > To: Everything

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in 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

What can grammar errors teach us about the workings of consciousness ?

Sometimes, it happens to us a particular kind of grammar errors. There are errors of the type: instead of spelling "light tie" for example, we end up spelling "tight lie". It is something peculiar about these kinds of errors, they are not random. They are trying to tell us something deep about

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

You said a good thing maybe even without realizing it. The "machinary" is not a "machinary" at all. Is a system of interacting conscious agents that work together to implement mechanical functions. On Saturday, 27 July 2019 03:34:20 UTC+3, smitra wrote: > > > That's like trying to build a

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

Quite a strong belief you have within you, young padawan. On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 23:11:10 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote: > > I bet that biology is reducible to physics and the belief, since that is > what it is, a belief, is one reason we have missed the boat on the life > sciences

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. If your question is "Can anything be known without a consciousness knowing it?", then again, consciousness can only know itself. On Monday, 22 July 2019 16:26:17 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

odic changes then dominate, allowing any > >>>> biochemical systems inside the superclusters to more easily evolve > >>>> toward exploiting the conditions in their micro-environments, > >>>> compared to a similar system in the outside environment. >

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

Keep in mind that "matter" is just an idea in consciousness. On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 16:45:29 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Keep in mind there is no consciousness without matter. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

Keep in mind that life is linked to consciousness. There is no such thing as "material life". Whatever happened had to involve consciousness one way or another. On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 01:55:58 UTC+3, smitra wrote: > > Keep in mind > -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

Consciousness (and so, reality) is all about meaning reported to context. And meanings and contexts can be anything, they don't have to be spatial or temporal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: Matter is forever

Self-reference is eternal. And then self-reference finds objects within itself, including time, time being an object like any other, like color red. And self-reference itself not being an object, it is not bound to the law of non-contradiction, so it can find multiple objects in itself at the

Re: Matter is forever

What does "matter" even mean ? Saying "matter is forever" is like saying "sdgasdga is forever". Both sentences carry the same amount of meaning. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

In my city, Bucharest. It's the Romanian Athenaeum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Athenaeum -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

So you care more about social status than truth ? Quite irrational, don't you think ? On Saturday, 6 July 2019 14:37:30 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > Who cares? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

What does this has to do with what that guy is saying ? On Saturday, 6 July 2019 13:53:28 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > You know that this YouTube channel > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

The origin of life has not been explained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: The Science of Consciousness, Interlaken 2019

What is a "proto"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 view this discussion on the

Re: The Science of Consciousness, Interlaken 2019

Right-click -> Copy image location, to see the full picture in a new tab. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: Eternal return

Have a look at my paper "The Problem of the Self" for some of your wonders: https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan -- 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

Re: Eternal return

Time is a quale in 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 view this discussion on

Re: A purely relational ontology?

Note that we know that telepathies are never 100% accurate. Some might dream of eating food, some other might dream of drinking water. But there was a telepathy, the telepathy of "ingesting something". This is because self-reference being any of its "I am"s, it doesn't necessarily have to

Re: A purely relational ontology?

And when a telepathy happens, what happens is that self-reference looks-back at 2 of its forms, and thus unite them into 1 form. If on the left you have "I am" and on the right you have "I am "I am"", self-reference will look at both at the same time and creates: I am ["I am" & "I am "I am""].

Re: A purely relational ontology?

Self-reference not being a formal entity, it can maintain at its unformal level propositions like "1=2". Therefore, it can look-back-at-itself in all kinds of way without creating contradictions, so it is able to bring multiple consciousnesses into existence, all consciousnesses having as

Re: A purely relational ontology?

You can clearly say that there are structures inside qualia, but the final quale is always singular. The highest quale that you experience is the present moment as such. And present moment as such, as a quale on its own, doesn't have another quale to compare with. So it shouldn't be possible to

  1   2   3   4   5   >