2011 8:57 PM, B Soroud wrote:
>>
>>> I'm saying that perhaps the philosophic foundations and presupps of
>>> physics are erroneous and something alternative is needed...
>>>
>>> I am saying we need to ground physics in an idealist metaphysics
>&g
Science deriving a idealistic metaphysic from experience?
On Friday, July 8, 2011, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 10:55 PM, B Soroud wrote:
>
> That's what a lot of philosophers have said. I say, "Have at it!" Let me
> know what you come up with.
>
> In theory
That's what a lot of philosophers have said. I say, "Have at it!" Let me
know what you come up with.
In theory one could formulate a rationalist system but that would of
course be ultimately unsatisfactory...
The theoretical level is just a means to an end and never an end in itself,
and if
I'm saying that perhaps the philosophic foundations and presupps of
physics are erroneous and something alternative is needed...
I am saying we need to ground physics in an idealist metaphysics
That's where my thoughts currently at.
On Friday, July 8, 2011, B Soroud wrote:
> I
I'm not saying forget psychics... I'm just saying perhaps we need
something more and additional approaches...
On Friday, July 8, 2011, Rex Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
> it makes so much sense.
Bruno = the will to freedom...
.
all his thought can be reduced to -> the will to freedom.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group,
Bruno, you are charismatic, but I refuse to be mesmerized by your
fantastical charms.
good luck!
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
yeah, who knows what the fundamental nature of all things is.
it could shock and surprise the hell out of us but for some reason I
feel optimistic now that it isn't totally out of reach.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Constanti
>
> First let me ask you, how do you define matter?
>
matter seems to generally mean the analytical divisibility/conundrum of what
is ordinarily observed in an "external"/"gross" and interconnected sense. It
seems to generally be the analysis of a) nature... as in its basic meaning
of "to be born"
Indeed... we may have made a mistake in our historical movement towards a
total rejection of metaphysical speculation in favor of the at hand... we
may have acted prematurely and out of too much impatience and yearning for
absolutes.
I think metaphysical speculation is coming back into the picture
In defense of Bruno: it makes perfect sense to state that physics is not
"the first principles of all being."
It makes perfect sense to not assume that some materialistic reductionism
will not provide one with the first principles in other words, physics
is not the fundamental science that gro
is refuted.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/7/2011 10:43 PM, B Soroud wrote:
>
>> in fact, religion/spirituality/**mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing
>> more then the exact opposite of the truth.
>>
>
> Well then all we have to do is tak
Is it possible that Bruno is a mutant that is somehow a fusion of
hyper-rationality and insanity?
Is Bruno a mad-scientist?
hehe.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:56 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> lol, you got me there.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On
lol, you got me there.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/7/2011 10:43 PM, B Soroud wrote:
>
>> in fact, religion/spirituality/**mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing
>> more then the exact opposite of the truth.
>>
>
> Well then all we ha
religion or metaphysics is the idealistic tradition that asserts that there
is an ultimate reality that is the reverse opposite of our present reality.
Wishful thinking?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group,
in fact, religion/spirituality/mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing more
then the exact opposite of the truth.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:42 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> religion or metaphysics is the idealistic tradition that asserts that there
> is an ultimate reality that is the reverse op
2011 at 3:00 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> Yes, I think physics is a dead end. I think they know that.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM, B Soroud wrote:
>
>> John M when I read your writing I see how it is wise, in the
>> tradition of Nagarjuna to make no asserti
Bruno, you are an animal...
"So that you can in principle survive with another body, coming from the
first by local functional substitution. I coin this into saying "yes doctor"
to a surgeon proposing you an artifical digital brain."
What is local functional substitution? If I am not my brain, t
Yes, I think physics is a dead end. I think they know that.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> John M when I read your writing I see how it is wise, in the
> tradition of Nagarjuna to make no assertions at all otherwise you
> get caught up in the contr
John M when I read your writing I see how it is wise, in the
tradition of Nagarjuna to make no assertions at all otherwise you
get caught up in the contradictions, internal inconcistencies, ironies, and
absurdities your writing shows above.
I think Bruno is right to critique absolu
amounts to nothing more then a misconstrued
and superficial phantom of your imagination.
If no whole earth can be known... then the concept makes no sense and has no
value.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:23 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> "What do you believe in then? I thought it was the phenomenal wo
"What do you believe in then? I thought it was the phenomenal world, but
the above sounds like immaterialism or solipsism."
I am neither a immaterialist nor a solipsist... don't try to conveniently
label me. I wouldn't call myself a phenomenalist per se. but if anything
I highly value the hum
;t think he has any real system.
>
> On Jul 6, 11:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's
>> consequence are not that original.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> don't think he has any real system.
>>
>> On Jul 6, 11:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> > Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's
>> > consequence are not that original.
>> >
>> > Bruno
>> >
>> &
35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:25:21AM -0700, B Soroud wrote:
> > Russell: "Yet the
> > reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds "
> >
> > Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
>
> Many
" If reality = a physical universe"
Personally, I don't believe that. Here is the catch, I don't believe its
antithesis or any alternative.
"My point is that if we assume mechanism"
Unfortunately, since I am new to this... I don't know what you mean by
mechanism.
"physical reality emerges from
dis-satisfactory not satisfactory.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> the point is... even if science did support some rudimentary conception of
> a gnostic cosmology.
>
> whereof teleology...
>
> it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta o
the point is... even if science did support some rudimentary conception of a
gnostic cosmology.
whereof teleology...
it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or Neo-Platonism or
Kaballah or whatever they are all ultimately satisfactory and
incoherent.
So there is no superstru
actually the famous physicist famously does play mystic. very incoherently
too.
are you trying to advance argument by authority i.e. "famous physicist
believes in classical metaphysics therefore there must be something to it"?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/6/2011 12:22
but its hard to abandon this group because this is the only group of super
high-quality thinkers I've actually come across on the net.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING.
>
>
> On Wed,
I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole..
>
> Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes
> this whole? what is
at they are not" (Protagoras)
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> "The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by
> definition),"
>
> But we don't know the "whole of that which exists" and we shouldn't
> co
somewhere" "we" are confused and included in the
"whole of that which exists" whatever in the world that or it or I is.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> **
> On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM
I would refer you to the Buddhistic notion of the negation of any ultimate
monadic consciousness whatsoever.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:28 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> Stars are a body. our first-person experience is dependent on a body...
> since first there was stars... second there wa
Stars are a body. our first-person experience is dependent on a body...
since first there was stars... second there was body, allowing for
first-person experience of stars.
There could be no first-person experience of stars prior to a human form
There could be no first-person experience pr
we knew that.
welcome to the desert of supreme ignorance.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> anyways... I'm reconciled with you guys I'll try not to play nicer yet
> remain a critic.
>
> p.s. I'm no mathematician, computer scientist, or physicis
re to translate things into simple
English.
I hope this is not necessarily like Plato's academy: "Let no one ignorant of
mathematics enter here"
surely there must be a way to express your ideas in plain English.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:25 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> Russell: "Y
Russell: "Yet the
reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds "
Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
IF this is true, then how did you get into the position to know this? How
did you derive a true metanarrative from a "confabulation".
IF all that we know and
11:57 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> > He does. Many here have been talking to him about it for years. You need
> to understand the distinction he is making between materialism and
> mechanism. When this happens in your head, your experience of trying to
> understand the r
We are god, and outside the normal physical world of interacting
relations... there is no truth or being. All metaphysics is fiction
Human-created for there is no other being! We are the highest! We are
making everything up!
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:48 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> How can
How can we have a truth about a reality we can't relate to and how can
there be a reality that is "higher" or more fundamental then us but not more
conscious and intelligent and powerful then us?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:41 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> Bruno, can I understand
orial experience for some independently existing and non-experiential
matrix?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> "If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought,
> show us the dependence."
>
> We must be confused, or I must be confused
lol, Bruno, lets not argue... we will eternally disagree.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lly framed criticism based on some knowledge.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Jul 2011, at 01:15, B Soroud wrote:
>
> Bru, I forgot:
>>
>> "At least they do not burn alive non buddhist, or very less often so. What
>> do you mean &qu
"If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show
us the dependence."
We must be confused, or I must be confused because you are way to clever
to not get what seems so simple and straightforward to me so there must
be some kind of confusion
because I would r
agarjuna he was radical logician... but he still accepted the
basic devotional and religious premises.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:53, B Soroud wrote:
>
> you see Bruno, your problem is your immaterialism.. there is something
>
"Chidren can get this by themselves at the age of seven."
Bruno, are you or have you ever been a member of the Theosophist party!
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:41, B Soroud wrote:
>
> in other words... I can legitimately c
"What do you mean by "God"?"
By God I mean anything that is expedient for me to mean by it.
"That does not work. yes, with comp, suicide does no more guaranty you
escape reality. The atheist conception of death appears as ... wishful
thinking."
So you mean I'm stuck in Brunoland forever? You sh
lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.
Truth/Reality?
nice one!
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:17, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
> Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely
>> recursive, self-
Bruno, I am not sympathizing with the Neo-Platonist dogmatists.
I am the ultimate anti-Platonist. And Christians, in the Eastern Orthodox
sense... are the ultimate modern Neo-Platonists (all other Christians are
degenerate except some Catholics) if you want the living tradition of
Neo-Platonis
correction... we use to use many words in the absence of consciousness
many words, duads, and triads... consciousness comes from the triad
consciousness/unconsciousness/self-consciousness.
And Rex why do you say "conscious experience" isn't that redundant?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:18 PM,
Rex:
"I believe that conscious experience exists, fundamentally and uncaused."
You believe monadic current of conscious experience is eternal?
Then why is your awareness or memory of it so fragile and finite?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Co
REx:
"Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful."
what I want to know is when did this term enter our lexicon... the Greeks
didn't use it, nor the Romans…. I don’t recall either Descartes, Spinoza,
Leibniz, Hume… using it….
It must have started with either Kant or Hegel… Hege
knows but for now it is an intelligent axiom to
assume... given where out thought is at.
I am doubtful of these outsider scientists who claim Leibniz and stuff and
are basically the kinds of people who get taken in by a Indian Gurus.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM, B Soroud wrote:
>
in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot
claim that "I am"...
being = 1/0 and 1/0 = -1/-0
in other words when we assert self-existence we effectively assert
something and nothing simultaneously.
so why make such a empty assertion. If it was true you woul
and embedded in modern
physics and thought!
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> but to say something positive... I like your formulation of religion as
> argument by authority.
>
> Religion = argument by authority.
>
> Now there are two forms of spirituality as ba
but to say something positive... I like your formulation of religion as
argument by authority.
Religion = argument by authority.
Now there are two forms of spirituality as barely distinguished from
religion: theoretical spirituality and existential spirituality.
Theoretical spirituality as indem
frankly... I don't believe an artificial brain is possible that is Gods
trick.. God, in so far as he exists, made it that no artificial brain
would ever be possible hence he is God (medieval scholastic logic).
"and practically that's how we will expands ourselves in virtual realities
s
et. You might try to find a
> flaw. I have many versions. Above a rigor threshold people get sleepy, and
> below, they misunderstand. UDA is enough to get that the comp transforms the
> mind-body problem in a body problem. Then a second part (AUDUA) translates
> the problem in arithmetical t
"I never claimed to know the identity of it."
so then what are you talking about?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous <
> bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason: "I can easily prove to
>> you at least one thing must be
Bruno, damn, this is heavy give me a moment to reply:
you see. I can be very sure that my body exists a 100% sure... but I
can't be sure that anything else exists.
you say: " Just now, you can hardlmy doubt you are... you know that you are
conscious. You know that you ...but you know you
lol, Bruno, your fictional Platonic Academy is sublimated Sun worshiping.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 04 Jul 2011, at 06:37, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
> I just realized that for some reason only half of these posts show up
>> in my e-mail…
>> Bruno, you
so there is hearing in the sense of speaking a word out loud. and there is
hearing in the sense of speaking a word "in your mind" and you think
this inner hearing is. what?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/4/2011 11:42 AM, B Soroud wrote:
>
&g
son 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"
>>>
>>>
"RR: Part of determining what exists is if a supernatural world does exist
and if so this certainly contributes to the enjoyment of our existence."
lol.
yes, but don't you see. our ancestors dreamt that up long ago. what makes
you think there is any substantial basis for it?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011
you also forgot
Natural Math - matter - mind - artificial math (work out any sequence)
you forgot many other sequences and many things we could add to this...
you also assume we understand or know any of these so called entities.
you presuppose to much.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Cons
0 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"
> >
> > > Are you saying consci
correction, "or in so far as something does cause you to reflect on the
figment consciousness" not "are in so far as something does cause you to
reflect on the figment consciousness"
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:32 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> "if you are thinking about c
"if you are thinking about consciousness, then what else could it have been
but consciousness that caused you to think about it"
Are you saying consciousness literally causes you to objectify
consciousness? Consciousness as a base is required to reflect on
consciousness... the question is whether
Are you guys joking Other beings then humans have consciousness
and they dint philosophize about it It is some other principle
that is the "cause".
On Sunday, July 3, 2011, meekerdb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/3/2011 8:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 2:35 AM, selva
I fully agree with Brent, plus, 1 is just a generic name for a thing,
2 is just a generic name or generalized symbol for two things If
you put two things next to each other, call one one and the other two
and say that the name for two ones is two. That is just a kind of
language game and ta
Your interpretation of mathematics isn't even worth responding to, but
your critique of preconditions is pretty interesting... It seems like
you're saying that there are no actual preconditions, there is only
flow and transformation + a zenos paradox Necesitating symbolic
thought to combat the
That's how my mind works... Lol.
On Saturday, July 2, 2011, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> This is weird! Two people with the same email address talking to
each other or one person talking to himself?!
>
> Stephen
>
> -Original Message- From: B Soroud
> Sent: Sunday,
, July 2, 2011, B Soroud wrote:
> Yes yes... There is no consciousness without phenomena because there
> would be nothing to be conscious of. Also, the notion that there is
> something (a subject) that is conscious of phenomena is a
> presupposition, something merely concluded for
unprovable.
On Saturday, July 2, 2011, B Soroud wrote:
> Yes indeed, the notion of consciousness, perception, primary
> sensation, or experience without or independent of phenomena... Is
> simply ridiculous The notion of absolute subjective consciousness
> devoid of either phenome
Yes indeed, the notion of consciousness, perception, primary
sensation, or experience without or independent of phenomena... Is
simply ridiculous The notion of absolute subjective consciousness
devoid of either phenomena or a body? Simply ridiculous.
There is no consciousness without phenomena
Mikes, I like your definition of consciousness as "the phenomena of
responding to relations" note a critical change.
I think that is the most excellent working definition of consciousness
I've come across.
What is life? That is one of those what ifs you know the one in a trillion.
But h
it just occurred to me that some of these theory of everything people might
find a little story of Voltaire's called Micromegas interesting...
http://www.wondersmith.com/scifi/micro.htm
"He promised to give them a rare book of philosophy, written in minute
characters, for their special use, telli
a question I want to pose to the community as well as Bruno is:
Bruno, have you ever seriously studied Nietzsche... he is probably the
single most persuasive critic of Platonism that has ever existed.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:08 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> it just seems to me that mentality mi
ur thoughts and comments.
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> *From:* B Soroud
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:25 PM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: consciousness
> furthermore you seem to conceive of a consciousness apart from its
> p
capacity
> and ability of individual ‘human embodied’ consciousness to create
> intentionally desired physical and mental effects.
>
>
> On Jul 2, 12:25 pm, B Soroud wrote:
> > furthermore you seem to conceive of a consciousness apart from its
> > properties... you are m
furthermore you seem to conceive of a consciousness apart from its
properties... you are making the erroneous distinction of attribute and
essence you sound much like Descartes.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, B Soroud wrote:
> "A property of consciousness is"
>
> it
"A property of consciousness is"
it sounds like you are reifying "consciousness"... consciousness is not a
thing in itself, consciousness does not exist in and of itself... it can
only be understood within the interdependent and complex framework of
sensation, bodies, space consciousness of so
sophy.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/publications/**
> SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2:38 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B
in principle but not necessarily in reality.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:02, B Soroud wrote:
>
> I'm just critiquing this notion of Platonic Theology have you read
> Plotinus..
>
>
> Yes. I have even s
I'm just critiquing this notion of Platonic Theology have you read
Plotinus.. wasn't he a transcendentalist and ecstatic he wanted to
think or will his way into some transcendent eternity or something.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:00 AM, B Soroud wrote:
> "A theory
"A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. "
That is a pretty interesting insight to dwell on.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote:
>
> indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign
indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an
anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of
us, is an anthropomorphization...
but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal
numbers have an existence in and of themselve
Bruno,
"It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If not you
fall in solipsism."
This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by point,
but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate from us
people always make this mistake we are rea
man sustains the model and is the basis of it, it has no graspable existence
independently of him, we dictate the terms... man is science.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:57 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/30/2011 11:36 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>
>> is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', in
90 matches
Mail list logo
