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 of
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? Can you
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 jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Friends:
Lots of *mouse*-traps written in this and
other*posts/preposts/repost/superposts/etc.
*
God? Truth? Reality? even:
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
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.
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
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 (I)
John M, that was a pretty excellent performance, you should write more
on here.
On Jun 15, 12:54 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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 Jul
how do you leap from non-doer to non-doing and unconsciousness?
On Jul 3, 10:30 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:32 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
if you are thinking about consciousness, then what else could it have been
but consciousness that
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
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 same
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
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 fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone watched the movie Contact, in which the structure of the
universe was
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
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
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,
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 definitely makes the most sense in this group...
On Jun 6, 10:16 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
How can any of those questions
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
comp immaterialism: I am dreaming that all numbers are dreaming and
I don't know it.
On Jun 7, 7:32 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote:
I guess you mean some sort of
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
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:
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
Everything
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 that
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 jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pete Hughes pet...@gmail.com wrote:
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 be
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote:
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
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
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 rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal
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
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
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
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 abstraction
“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
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
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).
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
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 bsor...@gmail.com
wrote:
but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map
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
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
reflected to your thought in shadow form?
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self',
necessarily the construct of a third-person
a 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 bsor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I just want to say how stupendously enthusiastic I am about this
group
. I am not sure because he seems to believe 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 marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
but I prefer
47 matches
Mail list logo
