Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

171 views
Skip to first unread message

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Oct 21, 2019, 8:12:17 AM10/21/19
to Everything List
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 ontological state of the world, so they thought there really is a "chair outside me", when the real ontological state was that of a state of consciousness. Therefore, it appears that in order to get rid of materialism is to stop making this confusion. The problem that arises is that no matter how hard we would try to do that, any retreat from the epistemic content of an ontological state will only gives us just another ontological state with the only difference being a different epistemic content. No matter what, we cannot escape epistemic contents. Is idealism therefore fundamentally unthinkable ?

I opened this topic after reading about process philosophy. They say that the solution to understanding the world is to not think in terms of "substances", but in terms of "events". The problem is that "events" is also an epistemic content, in the sense that the concept of "event" is extrapolated from the subjective feeling of passage of time. But the "passage of time" is just a quality/an epistemic state of consciousness. To take it as revealing to us a deep character of the world is to do the same mistake materialism is doing. So, in order to avoid the mistake of materialism is to recognize this fact, and thus to reject that "event" can be anything ontologically meaningful. Is there any way to escape this vicious circle of confusions between ontological states and epistemic contents and get to an idealistic conception of the world, or is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 21, 2019, 2:52:28 PM10/21/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 10/21/2019 5:12 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> 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 ontological state of the world, so they
> thought there really is a "chair outside me", when the real
> ontological state was that of a state of consciousness. Therefore, it
> appears that in order to get rid of materialism is to stop making this
> confusion. The problem that arises is that no matter how hard we would
> try to do that, any retreat from the epistemic content of an
> ontological state will only gives us just another ontological state
> with the only difference being a different epistemic content.

I'd say it's the other way around.  The epistemic content stays the same
"seeing a chair", but the theory of what is real changes: from substance
(wood), to chemistry (compounds), to physics (atoms), to metaphysics
(mathematics), to...

> No matter what, we cannot escape epistemic contents. Is idealism
> therefore fundamentally unthinkable ?

"Epistemology precedes ontology."
      --- Terry Savage

>
> I opened this topic after reading about process philosophy. They say
> that the solution to understanding the world is to not think in terms
> of "substances", but in terms of "events". The problem is that
> "events" is also an epistemic content, in the sense that the concept
> of "event" is extrapolated from the subjective feeling of passage of
> time. But the "passage of time" is just a quality/an epistemic state
> of consciousness. To take it as revealing to us a deep character of
> the world is to do the same mistake materialism is doing. So, in order
> to avoid the mistake of materialism is to recognize this fact, and
> thus to reject that "event" can be anything ontologically meaningful.
> Is there any way to escape this vicious circle of confusions between
> ontological states and epistemic contents and get to an idealistic
> conception of the world, or is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

Brent
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
   --- Muriel Rukeyser

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 21, 2019, 3:16:13 PM10/21/19
to Everything List


To be an immaterialist (idealist) is to assume we are already spirit (or numbers). There is no real death, because sprits (or numbers) cannot die. So it is as being in Christian Heaven of Hell.

@philipthrift

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 21, 2019, 8:27:03 PM10/21/19
to Everything List
Events are really just materials extended into the fourth dimension of time.

Idealism is of course rather silly. The idea that all that exists is consciousness is a "feel good" idea that is utterly preposterous. It is a conceit that should make any reasonable person feel rather ill. We are in fact not ideal. The only empirically supportable purpose that might exist for the human species is for us to grab onto what ever we can in the natural world and convert it all into trash. We are doing a damned good job of it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faU-SK0pHCI

LC


On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 2:47:58 AM10/22/19
to Everything List
Prove there is something outside consciousness!

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 4:23:19 AM10/22/19
to Everything List


If consciousness is all there is, then why do our consciousnesses don't go back 100 years, or 10000 years, or whatever? Do you think yours does? If there were no material births (because there is no matter), there is no reason you you shouldn't remember things from millions of years ago, because there is no material constraint on the eternity of pure consciousness.

@philipthrift

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 5:55:33 AM10/22/19
to Everything List
I never understood this "if consciousness is all there is, then it is allpowerful". How does that follow ?

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 7:06:02 AM10/22/19
to Everything List


On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
I never understood this "if consciousness is all there is, then it is allpowerful". How does that follow ?

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 an explanation.

@philipthrift

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 7:25:04 AM10/22/19
to Everything List
On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
Prove there is something outside consciousness!

I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.

LC

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 7:49:45 AM10/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 21 Oct 2019, at 14:12, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

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 ontological state of the world, so they thought there really is a "chair outside me", when the real ontological state was that of a state of consciousness. Therefore, it appears that in order to get rid of materialism is to stop making this confusion. The problem that arises is that no matter how hard we would try to do that, any retreat from the epistemic content of an ontological state will only gives us just another ontological state with the only difference being a different epistemic content. No matter what, we cannot escape epistemic contents. Is idealism therefore fundamentally unthinkable ?

I opened this topic after reading about process philosophy. They say that the solution to understanding the world is to not think in terms of "substances", but in terms of "events". The problem is that "events" is also an epistemic content, in the sense that the concept of "event" is extrapolated from the subjective feeling of passage of time. But the "passage of time" is just a quality/an epistemic state of consciousness. To take it as revealing to us a deep character of the world is to do the same mistake materialism is doing. So, in order to avoid the mistake of materialism is to recognize this fact, and thus to reject that "event" can be anything ontologically meaningful. Is there any way to escape this vicious circle of confusions between ontological states and epistemic contents and get to an idealistic conception of the world, or is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?


It is thinkable, but when we assume Mechanism, The appearance of matter must be explained from the assumption of the existence of a universal machinery (in the sense of Turing, Church). The natural numbers with addition and multiplication is such a universal machinery so we can start from that. 
It can be proved that we cannot explain (or prove the existence) of a universal machinery without assuming one, so we cannot do better. Then physics and psychology/theology can be extracted, constructively, so we can test Mechanism (and upon to now, thanks to QM, it fits very well).

Is it idealism? If you consider the numbers as God’s idea, it is idealism. If not, it is “only” immaterialism. It is a neutral monism (neither mind nor matter) explaining well both the appearance of mind and the appearance of matter. The universal machine/number have a very rich neoplatonic-like type of theology, close to Moderatus of Gades (first century) and Plotinus and its followers, like Proclus notably.

Bruno





--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b30ad355-dc71-4657-9b44-0e194b7234bf%40googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 7:55:45 AM10/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22 Oct 2019, at 08:47, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Prove there is something outside consciousness!

In which theory?

Proving is a relative notion. 

Proving a proposition does not make it necessarily true? It depends on the axioms, which usually are not provable or justifiable. At some point we have to rely to our intuition.

The argument “prove there is something outside consciousness” is close to solipsism. I certainly bet that you and your body is outside “my human consciousness”.

The real problem of assuming consciousness, or assuming matter, is that this assumes what some of us want to understand/explain from simpler notions.

Bruno




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 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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 7:59:52 AM10/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Only through an identity thesis (brain-mind) which requires actual infinities incompatible with Mechanism.
With mechanism we explain consciousness (the feeling of appearances) and matter (why some of those feeling are first person plural and sharable, and why it stabilises, … or not, which we can test).

That does not make the mechanist explanation true, but it becomes testable, and rather well test if we are willing to take seriously quantum mechanics without collapse (à-la Everett).

Bruno




@philipthrift

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 9:21:18 AM10/22/19
to Everything List


On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 6:59:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Oct 2019, at 13:06, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
I never understood this "if consciousness is all there is, then it is allpowerful". How does that follow ?

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 an explanation.

Only through an identity thesis (brain-mind) which requires actual infinities incompatible with Mechanism.
With mechanism we explain consciousness (the feeling of appearances) and matter (why some of those feeling are first person plural and sharable, and why it stabilises, … or not, which we can test).

That does not make the mechanist explanation true, but it becomes testable, and rather well test if we are willing to take seriously quantum mechanics without collapse (à-la Everett).

Bruno



But with pure arithmetic, it's the same problem as pure consciousness.

If consciousness is a pure arithmetical machine (PAM), why should PAM have a lifetime beginning (birth) and end (death)?

A purely mathematical Turing machine exists outside time. It doesn't have a birth and a death. It just exists as Platonic mathematical abstraction for all time.

@philipthrift. 

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 10:24:38 AM10/22/19
to Everything List
Not my consciousness, but consciousness generally.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 10:25:11 AM10/22/19
to Everything List
That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions between consciousnesses.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 1:18:45 PM10/22/19
to Everything List
It is not silly. It is empirical. If you are interested in some sort of firm "mathy" type of proof, then I would suggest the burden is more upon you to prove your case that idealism is true.  I have no particular interest in the subject to begin with, so I put the ball in your court. Prove your case. 

LC

Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 2:15:14 PM10/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 10/22/2019 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> It can be proved that we cannot explain (or prove the existence) of a
> universal machinery without assuming one, so we cannot do better.

But that's equally true of primary matter, ideas, or whatever your
fundamental ontology is.  It's just a consequence of taking it as
fundamental.  If it had an explanation or proof it wouldn't be
fundamental.  So it's not some profound evidence for your theory.

Brent

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 2:42:20 PM10/22/19
to Everything List
Empiricism cannot say whether it's (all) matter, consciousness, or numbers.

What makes the latter two dismissible is they do not explain what we know of our own consciousness - that it is finite in time and bounded in space.

@philipthrift 

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 9:41:07 PM10/22/19
to Everything List
I am not saying "if I kick it it kicks back" means everything is matter. In fact the total mass-energy of the universe is zero. However, it does lend weight to the proposition there exists at least locally matter that is external to mind. Matter does not conform to what my mind might otherwise desire things to be. Statistical mechanics even shows that what we see as a desired order is just one rather small macrostate in the energy surface of phase space. Besides, our conscious lives are pretty fragile in the face of things.


LC

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 3:38:47 AM10/23/19
to Everything List
"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?" 


@philipthrift

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 6:19:57 AM10/23/19
to Everything List
Trololol. Prove that the dragons in your dreams exist!

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 7:17:58 AM10/23/19
to Everything List
I am not arguing for a dualism. If there is dualism between matter and mind, then it appears that matter is more pervasive. If the two are the same in a monism, or mind a manifestation of matter, then mind is most likely a subset of matter. Arguing over this is really a sort of metaphysics that is not much more fruitful than the proverbial argument over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

LC
 

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 8:50:10 AM10/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22 Oct 2019, at 13:25, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
Prove there is something outside consciousness!

I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.


Does it? Kicking a rock is a dream-able event, and usually, it kicks back in dream to (that’s too a dream-able event), so it is hardly an argument to convince oneself that we are in presence of a “real solid rock”.

In my long work I call a dream “contra lucid” those dreams where we "test reality", and get convinced that we are not dreaming. That happens often to people interested in studying if we can know that we are not dreaming. Usually, people who train themselves in lucid dream will live the phenomenon of false awakening. They make a lucid dream, wake up, write the dream in their diary and then, wake up again. That can happen multiple time. Bertrand Russel claimed he got one hundred false awakening in succession. I think he meant “many”.

With mechanism, it is not difficult to explain that we can know in a dream that we are dreaming, but we cannot know-for-sure, when awaken, that we are awake. It is comparable to “be wrong”. We can learn that we are wrong, but we cannot learn that we are not wrong. Likewise a machine can discover she is inconsistent, but she cannot justify that she is consistent.

Bruno




LC
 

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 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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 8:56:39 AM10/23/19
to Everything List
I acknowledge the antimaterialist ways of thinking:  

In philosophy, antimaterialism can mean one of several metaphysical or religious beliefs that are specifically opposed to materialism, the notion that only matter exists.


It just has always seemed weird to me.


@philipthrift

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 9:02:48 AM10/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22 Oct 2019, at 15:21, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 6:59:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Oct 2019, at 13:06, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
I never understood this "if consciousness is all there is, then it is allpowerful". How does that follow ?

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 an explanation.

Only through an identity thesis (brain-mind) which requires actual infinities incompatible with Mechanism.
With mechanism we explain consciousness (the feeling of appearances) and matter (why some of those feeling are first person plural and sharable, and why it stabilises, … or not, which we can test).

That does not make the mechanist explanation true, but it becomes testable, and rather well test if we are willing to take seriously quantum mechanics without collapse (à-la Everett).

Bruno



But with pure arithmetic, it's the same problem as pure consciousness.

If consciousness is a pure arithmetical machine (PAM),

To be a bit strict, obviously consciousness is not a pure arithmetical machine, as consciousness is a “pure" FIRST PERSON notion, and an arithmetical machine is a third person notion, so those things cannot be equated.

Mechanism just assume that consciousness is a mental state capable of being preserved in a relative copy of my body, at some description level. But consciousness, like knowledge can be proved to be not identifiable to anything third person descriptible.



why should PAM have a lifetime beginning (birth) and end (death)?

Yet, I understand the question. Interesting and very complex question. You are right on this, the soul (the first person consciousness associated to a machine) is immortal: no birth, no death, indeed. With Mechanism mortality is … wishful thinking. That never happens.



A purely mathematical Turing machine exists outside time. It doesn't have a birth and a death.

But the arithmetical time (the sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, …) is not directly related to the physical time. So, the physical incarnation of a digital machine can still “die” in the local third person, or first person plural way. Indeed, typically a program run by some universal machinery can stop. What remains true, and foreseen by Plato and many others, is that the first person cannot die from its first person perspective.




It just exists as Platonic mathematical abstraction for all time.

In some sense, yes. But that is not the usual sense of immortality, which is related to physical time, which is en emerging first person plural pattern.

Ask for more if interested. Eventually you need to study Gödel universal sigma_1 complete predicate “beweisbar”, []p, which is used to define all the modes of self-reference. There is a sense where []p can be said to die “all the time”, as it can access to could-de-sac world from any world. But ([]p & p), the Theaeteus’ “opinion” can access to itself eternally, and does not seem able to die.

Bruno




@philipthrift. 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 9:06:47 AM10/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22 Oct 2019, at 20:42, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 12:18:45 PM UTC-5, 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 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 did, "It then kicks back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.


It is not silly. It is empirical. If you are interested in some sort of firm "mathy" type of proof, then I would suggest the burden is more upon you to prove your case that idealism is true.  I have no particular interest in the subject to begin with, so I put the ball in your court. Prove your case. 

LC



Empiricism cannot say whether it's (all) matter, consciousness, or numbers.

That’s correct, or at least consistent with Digital Mechanism.


What makes the latter two dismissible is they do not explain what we know of our own consciousness - that it is finite in time and bounded in space.

That is incorrect. Only Mechanism explains consciousness (physicalism has failed since 1500 years, as all philosophers of mind agree on, and explain, and then with Mechanism, Physicalism must fail, … if you grasp the UD Argument).

Bruno




@philipthrift 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 9:11:42 AM10/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?” 


We can be sure of the existence of our mind (and indeed explain it in term of number relation, like in computer science).

We can find the notion of matter very plausible and certainly very useful.

But matter is not the same as the metaphysical notion of primary matter used in physicalism (a metaphysical position which assume that some matter exists whose appearance is not deducible from any theory which does not assume it at the start).

The real question is why does people keep a materialist metaphysics, without any evidence for it, and a lot of evidence making this doubtful.

Bruno




--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 9:17:40 AM10/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
The “modern” version of that argument is “how many bits or qubits can you handle in some finite space-time volume.

With mechanism, we get a monist immaterialist theory, and the physical reality get a non physical, yet mathematical, explanation/origin. It extends Darwin's idea that the human biology has an history and origin, for the physical reality, albeit not in a physical reality, but as appearances in the arithmetical reality “seen from inside”. There was an epoch you could be ostracised (to say the least) if you came up with the idea that the human have a terrestrial origin. Today we agree with drawing on this, but Darwin’s explanation (or type of explanation) does not work for consciousness. With Mechanism, we have:

NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body and its local consciousness.

Bruno




LC
 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 9:18:57 AM10/23/19
to Everything List
As Strawson says: 

It’s not the physics picture of matter that’s the problem; it’s the ordinary everyday picture of matter. 


@phiipthrift

Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 2:21:38 PM10/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the
> physical MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body
> and its local consciousness.

Which explains NUMBER.

Brent

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 25, 2019, 7:26:53 AM10/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Just to be clear, I use materialism (or weak-materialism) as the belief in primary matter. The belief that the explanation of the matter phenomenon requires some matter to exist in some irreducible way, or the belief that matter has to be assumed to explain its appearance.






Anti-materialism sounds much like the belief that matter does not exist “ontologically” or in some primary way.

Non materialism is the absence of belief in such Matter, but it can be accompanied with the absence of belief that it does not exist. It is like with God, we can have no belief in any direction (existence or non existence). When doing metaphysics with the scientific method, that is the starring point: agnosticism, as we cannot decide the truth in advance.



It just has always seemed weird to me.

Keep in mind that we have been brainwashed by 1500 years of (weak) materialism, which is also a natural extrapolation from experience. But there has never been any evidence for it. There are a tun of evidence for the existence of matter, but no genuine evidence that its appearance requires it to have an ontological status. Now, both Mechanism in Cognitive science, and QM adds to the idea that it does not exist (in that primary way).

Bruno





@philipthrift

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 25, 2019, 7:31:46 AM10/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number. A scientific theory requires some assumptions/postulates/axioms, and all scientists assume the numbers with addition and multiplication (or something Turing equivalent). We cannot explain the number with anything less than a universal machinery. It happens that the natural numbers with + and * provides a simple universal machinery, and with computationalism, all the rest must be deduce from it (if the goal is to get a theory which handles both matter and consciousness).

Bruno


>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7203afbc-c0f7-2f28-b185-06a668929237%40verizon.net.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 25, 2019, 8:49:14 AM10/25/19
to Everything List
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 7:50:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Oct 2019, at 13:25, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
Prove there is something outside consciousness!

I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.


Does it? Kicking a rock is a dream-able event, and usually, it kicks back in dream to (that’s too a dream-able event), so it is hardly an argument to convince oneself that we are in presence of a “real solid rock”.

In my long work I call a dream “contra lucid” those dreams where we "test reality", and get convinced that we are not dreaming. That happens often to people interested in studying if we can know that we are not dreaming. Usually, people who train themselves in lucid dream will live the phenomenon of false awakening. They make a lucid dream, wake up, write the dream in their diary and then, wake up again. That can happen multiple time. Bertrand Russel claimed he got one hundred false awakening in succession. I think he meant “many”.

With mechanism, it is not difficult to explain that we can know in a dream that we are dreaming, but we cannot know-for-sure, when awaken, that we are awake. It is comparable to “be wrong”. We can learn that we are wrong, but we cannot learn that we are not wrong. Likewise a machine can discover she is inconsistent, but she cannot justify that she is consistent.

Bruno


Dreams are not very coherent. I think idealism can be made very suspect on a number of bases. The world we observe clearly presents evidence of its existence long before we were here. In fact it existed long before anything called life or biology. So the idealist might then point to the panpsychists who say even elementary particles have some unit of consciousness. The problem is that quantum mechanics would require there to be some sort of observable in association with an operator. Panpsychism would say there is some sort of quantum number involved with psychic existence. None exists. So then the idealist would say the past is an illusion and all the evidence of past cosmic existence is just a mental state or some sort. The problem here is this lends itself to delusions, in fact to solipsism, and if idealism is correct then maybe insanity is the norm. I choose not to go there.

LC 
 



LC
 

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 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 25, 2019, 5:46:12 PM10/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 10/25/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body and its local consciousness.
>> Which explains NUMBER.
> Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number.

Number and the conception of number are the same thing.  That's why it's
an abstract concept.  There could be no number 2 without the concept of
two things being similar and so in the same class. Without this
conceptual relation, s() would just be marks on paper.

Brent

Philip Thrift

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 4:05:13 AM10/26/19
to Everything List


On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Panpsychism would say there is some sort of quantum number involved with psychic existence. 
 
LC 



We could make one:


One thing we do know about matter is that when you put some very common elements together in the way in which they're put together in brains, you get consciousness.

@philipthrift




 
 

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 4:33:08 AM10/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 25 Oct 2019, at 14:49, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 7:50:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Oct 2019, at 13:25, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
Prove there is something outside consciousness!

I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.


Does it? Kicking a rock is a dream-able event, and usually, it kicks back in dream to (that’s too a dream-able event), so it is hardly an argument to convince oneself that we are in presence of a “real solid rock”.

In my long work I call a dream “contra lucid” those dreams where we "test reality", and get convinced that we are not dreaming. That happens often to people interested in studying if we can know that we are not dreaming. Usually, people who train themselves in lucid dream will live the phenomenon of false awakening. They make a lucid dream, wake up, write the dream in their diary and then, wake up again. That can happen multiple time. Bertrand Russel claimed he got one hundred false awakening in succession. I think he meant “many”.

With mechanism, it is not difficult to explain that we can know in a dream that we are dreaming, but we cannot know-for-sure, when awaken, that we are awake. It is comparable to “be wrong”. We can learn that we are wrong, but we cannot learn that we are not wrong. Likewise a machine can discover she is inconsistent, but she cannot justify that she is consistent.

Bruno


Dreams are not very coherent.

By dream, I mean (using Digital Mechanism, my working hypothesis) any computation rich enough to sustain a universal (Löbian) machine/number. So the waking state, relatively to a universal environment is just a special case of dream (a true dream if you want).



I think idealism can be made very suspect on a number of bases. The world we observe clearly presents evidence of its existence long before we were here.

I agree if by “we” you mean “we, the humans”. I disagree if by “we” you mean “we the universal numbers”.



In fact it existed long before anything called life or biology.

Locally, yes. But I don’t really believe in it. I have never found even one evidence, and tuns of evidence to the contrary. Then with Mechanism we can test it, and QM somehow confirm the immaterialism implied by the digital mechanist hypothesis. 


So the idealist might then point to the panpsychists who say even elementary particles have some unit of consciousness.

That makes of course no sense at all, provably so if we assume Mechanism. But Mechanism is incompatible with the metaphysical belief in an ontological (primary) physical reality.



The problem is that quantum mechanics would require there to be some sort of observable in association with an operator. Panpsychism would say there is some sort of quantum number involved with psychic existence. None exists. So then the idealist would say the past is an illusion and all the evidence of past cosmic existence is just a mental state or some sort.


With Mechanism, the physical reality exists, without much doubt, but it is not a fundamental reality, it arises from the first person statistics on all computations. This explains everything quantum mechanics predicts, without any ontological commitment other than the belief that 2+2= 4 and similar.



The problem here is this lends itself to delusions, in fact to solipsism, and if idealism is correct then maybe insanity is the norm. I choose not to go there.

Me neither. But that is not a reason to believe that the physical *universe” is the fundamental reality. That is logically impossible if we assume that the brain is a locally finite machine. Such a “real universe” would need magical abilities to select a computation from the infinitely many going through our state.

Physicalism requires non-mechanism, and that is out of the scope of my expertise. I don’t go there either.

Bruno




LC 
 



LC
 

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 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/556f8a1c-50f4-489c-aa4f-3feeb9ce0606%40googlegroups.com.


--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/54c065b6-74b7-4701-b871-9bd802d4f2bb%40googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 4:36:13 AM10/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/25/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body and its local consciousness.
>>> Which explains NUMBER.
>> Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number.
>
> Number and the conception of number are the same thing.

With mechanism, the numbers, or the combinators (etc.) are taken as primitive.

The conception of number is then explained by the mental abilities of the universal Turing machine/numbers.

The numbers is the object of study of elementary arithmetic.

The conception of numbers is the object of study of anthropology and or computer science.



> That's why it's an abstract concept. There could be no number 2 without the concept of two things being similar and so in the same class. Without this conceptual relation, s() would just be marks on paper.


Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. How could the Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans?

Bruno



>
> Brent
>
>> A scientific theory requires some assumptions/postulates/axioms, and all scientists assume the numbers with addition and multiplication (or something Turing equivalent). We cannot explain the number with anything less than a universal machinery. It happens that the natural numbers with + and * provides a simple universal machinery, and with computationalism, all the rest must be deduce from it (if the goal is to get a theory which handles both matter and consciousness).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7203afbc-c0f7-2f28-b185-06a668929237%40verizon.net.
>
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bc435417-57e4-840c-b670-57c0464d1bcb%40verizon.net.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 1:51:20 PM10/26/19
to Everything List
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:36:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. How could the Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans?

Bruno

If this is where the western intellectual trajectory is taking us then it is small wonder that China is becoming the dominant actor in science, technology and ultimately the rest of the world.

LC 

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 2:22:35 PM10/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
China does world-class development work, but uses spies to steal original ideas from outside of China, the R as in research. Any business that sells in China, turns over its intellectual property to Chinese companies which turn over the data to the Communist Party. China has armed up with weapons so as to ensure (hypersonics) eliminate US submarines so there no retaliatory strikes, after a first strike, on the US. Thus, the Communist Party wants the US physically eliminated, even though we are their biggest customer. I guess some things are more important than money, if you hate someone enough. I believe Orange Man will fail with Xi, just as Obama in 2012 failed with Putin. On the physics, of which one believes in a strong observer, or a weak, unconscious one, it almost becomes pedantic, unless one gains a beneficial insight, or can in some fashion, 'go there.' On planet earth concerning intellectual or physical ascendancy...
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 3:40:31 PM10/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Unless there's sudden blow to the brain case...which doesn't change the molecules at all.

Brent


@philipthrift




 
 
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eeac6b9b-3a7d-478f-880b-4e45a088217d%40googlegroups.com.

Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 3:43:33 PM10/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 10/26/2019 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body and its local consciousness.
>>>> Which explains NUMBER.
>>> Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number.
>> Number and the conception of number are the same thing.
> With mechanism, the numbers, or the combinators (etc.) are taken as primitive.
>
> The conception of number is then explained by the mental abilities of the universal Turing machine/numbers.
>
> The numbers is the object of study of elementary arithmetic.
>
> The conception of numbers is the object of study of anthropology and or computer science.
>
>
>
>> That's why it's an abstract concept. There could be no number 2 without the concept of two things being similar and so in the same class. Without this conceptual relation, s() would just be marks on paper.
>
> Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense.

Category error.  You equivocate on "physics".  Physics, the theories of
matter and energy, would indeed not make sense.  But "physics" the
subject of the theories would still exist.  "To make sense" is a
relational property of the two.

Brent

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 6:33:50 PM10/26/19
to Everything List
There is more research from China of late. They are making a mark in the field of quantum communications.

LC
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 8:48:25 PM10/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Ah, very good. 


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 7:12:25 AM10/29/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I am not sure. Taoisme is very close to neoplatonism, and neutral on the material/immaterial nature of the fundamental reality.

Anyway, you did not make a scientific argument for the existence of Primary Matter, but a political argument, almost against simply searching the truth in this domain. 

Well, actually, your point is unclear, as you quote me saying something which I find absurd. Obviously, I believe like most that animals existence, and 2+2 = 4, where true, independently of the appearance of the humans. But not independently of the existence of computations in arithmetic.

Bruno





LC 

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 7:19:37 AM10/29/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

> On 26 Oct 2019, at 21:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2019 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body and its local consciousness.
>>>>> Which explains NUMBER.
>>>> Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number.
>>> Number and the conception of number are the same thing.
>> With mechanism, the numbers, or the combinators (etc.) are taken as primitive.
>>
>> The conception of number is then explained by the mental abilities of the universal Turing machine/numbers.
>>
>> The numbers is the object of study of elementary arithmetic.
>>
>> The conception of numbers is the object of study of anthropology and or computer science.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That's why it's an abstract concept. There could be no number 2 without the concept of two things being similar and so in the same class. Without this conceptual relation, s() would just be marks on paper.
>>
>> Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense.
>
> Category error.

Sorry if unclear, but the context indicates that I was talking about the physical reality. If 2 does not makes sense, "2 particles” does not make sense.




> You equivocate on "physics". Physics, the theories of matter and energy, would indeed not make sense.

Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does not make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can today considered as real before us.


> But "physics" the subject of the theories would still exist.

What would still exist?




> "To make sense" is a relational property of the two.

I agree with this, but I take 2+2=4 as more “true independently of me and you” than anything extrapolated from a finite numbers of observations, and still less when this is reified (ontologically), as there has no evidences for this, and evidences to the contrary.

Bruno



>
> Brent
>
>> How could the Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans?
>>
>> Bruno
>
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5ed747a-7acd-5994-30d6-e4bfdbab538c%40verizon.net.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 7:27:31 AM10/29/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 27 Oct 2019, at 02:48, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ah, very good. 

Hmm… I find that rather frightening, when you learn about Xi’s plan to monitor all communications. Once applications of quantum computing is the famous “finding a needle in the stack” problem, and a dictator like Xi can use quantum technology to find all dissidents among the Chinese.

Technology is a very good thing, except when used by tyran and other enemy of democracies.

Xi has betrayed Dao, and China is coming back to its worst Daemons … I am sad so few people react to what happens in Hong Kong, but I a used to the human cowardliness. But I think this has a big price, and we might have top pay for this, soon or later.

Not only in some region of China is everyone observed (like in Orwell 1984), but their credit card is directly related to their behaviour. You might look a prono movie, or a documentary on democracies, and discover after that this implied your credit card ...

Bruno


Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 2:01:42 PM10/29/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 10/29/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does not make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can today considered as real before us.

"2" and "Big Bang" are descriptive elements in our theories.  Before us
there is no one to hold the theories, no one to stand in the relation of
"making sense to".

Brent

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 30, 2019, 5:46:23 AM10/30/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 19:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does not make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can today considered as real before us.
>
> "2" and "Big Bang" are descriptive elements in our theories.

They are supposed to refer to things which we believe to be independent of us and of our theories.



> Before us there is no one to hold the theories, no one to stand in the relation of "making sense to”.

Does this prevents us to believe that there was a big-bang before the humans? Or that 67 is odd, even in absence of human?

If it does, I’m afraid we are on a slope toward anthropocentrism if not solipsism.

Bruno

>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8228ca99-daf4-1bd1-0fb9-cd81dd246051%40verizon.net.

Brent Meeker

unread,
Oct 30, 2019, 5:46:36 PM10/30/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 10/30/2019 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2019, at 19:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does not make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can today considered as real before us.
>> "2" and "Big Bang" are descriptive elements in our theories.
> They are supposed to refer to things which we believe to be independent of us and of our theories.
>
>
>
>> Before us there is no one to hold the theories, no one to stand in the relation of "making sense to”.
> Does this prevents us to believe that there was a big-bang before the humans? Or that 67 is odd, even in absence of human?

Of course not.  We invented the terms to describe what we believe. But
it doesn't mean the terms themselves "made sense" a billion years ago;
they make sense about things a billion years ago.  The terms and the
"make sense" relation are in the present.

Brent

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Nov 1, 2019, 6:59:17 AM11/1/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2019 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 2019, at 19:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does not make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can today considered as real before us.
>>> "2" and "Big Bang" are descriptive elements in our theories.
>> They are supposed to refer to things which we believe to be independent of us and of our theories.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Before us there is no one to hold the theories, no one to stand in the relation of "making sense to”.
>> Does this prevents us to believe that there was a big-bang before the humans? Or that 67 is odd, even in absence of human?
>
> Of course not. We invented the terms to describe what we believe. But it doesn't mean the terms themselves "made sense" a billion years ago; they make sense about things a billion years ago. The terms and the "make sense" relation are in the present.

So we agree. I lost the goal of your previous point though. You did not quote enough to see if your remark has an impact on what I was trying to convey. If you are OK that 67 is odd independently of the terms used to refer to that number, and independently of us, I think that what I could have said will go through.

Bruno


>
> Brent
>
>>
>> If it does, I’m afraid we are on a slope toward anthropocentrism if not solipsism.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8228ca99-daf4-1bd1-0fb9-cd81dd246051%40verizon.net.
>
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/191549fc-2a52-44f5-b9b1-f5f7c2ce6296%40verizon.net.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages