Re: Constructive thinking vs dismissive thinking

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List =

<everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

=20
Why don't you have a Nobel prize if your theory is the best ?

Why is cannabis still schedule one?

Why is theology still not back at the academy of science?

Take the human factor into account. 

The lies on cannabis are known by
virtually all experts in the field since day one of prohibition, but the
lies continue. They are recent, though, so you can imagine it will take
time for reason to come back in theology, where the brainwashing has
already lasted for 1500 years.

Also, there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics, and then neither Gödel,
nor any logician have ever got the Field Medal, (the math “Nobel Prize), 

but they are those having contributed to all what I try to explain here.

BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.

Discovering something is not enough. There are many other parameters,
and in the foundational sciences, we are still not cured from the
argument of authority, both in Church and in some (not all) Academies. 

That will take time, if ever.

Bruno

[PGC]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 1:40:01 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 

BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.

You continue to hide from skeptical inquiry, questions, and facts; hallmarks of science, while proclaiming to be their champion. 

If there ever was a Swiss journalist, then it would appear that he wasn't doing his job as an investigative journalist.

If he had done his job and you indeed are in possession of a digital physics, a metaphysics, a theology, a verifiable solution to mind-body problem beyond opinion/belief, or any scientific discourse that merits a prize then it's never to late to claim it. 

Present your evidence to the parties in question, proceed, and/or fight. PGC

[Bruno Marchal]

On 2 Jun 2019, at 14:33, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 1:40:01 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 

BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.

You continue to hide from skeptical inquiry, questions, and facts; hallmarks of science, while proclaiming to be their champion. 

I proclaim nothing of that kind. I just try to answer question. Let discuss on idea and not people.

I am not sure what you are skeptical about. Is it the mechanist hypothesis. I am skeptical too, that is why I have been able to show that it is testable, and I do not confuse its current day confirmation (the facts that it explain consciousness in a way consistent with one of the major theory about matter) as a proof that mechanism would be true.

In science we never claim truth, but propose theories and means of testing them.

Bruno

If there ever was a Swiss journalist, then it would appear that he wasn't doing his job as an investigative journalist.

If he had done his job and you indeed are in possession of a digital physics, a metaphysics, a theology, a verifiable solution to mind-body problem beyond opinion/belief, or any scientific discourse that merits a prize then it's never to late to claim it. 

Present your evidence to the parties in question, proceed, and/or fight. PGC

--
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/401f28d6-831d-4aac-971a-d10048620066%40googlegroups.com.

[PGC]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 2:38:04 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 2 Jun 2019, at 14:33, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 1:40:01 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 

BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.

You continue to hide from skeptical inquiry, questions, and facts; hallmarks of science, while proclaiming to be their champion. 

I proclaim nothing of that kind. I just try to answer question. Let discuss on idea and not people.

I am not sure what you are skeptical about.

The entire enterprise.

See: 

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 

> No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively. 

A definition by ostension, requires the faith that there is a reality, that we are not dreaming or in an arithmetical video game, or an infinity of them. 



> It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles. 

But you need an act of faith to believe that there isa reality behind your hypothesises principles. You don’t need faith the formally deduce in a theory, but you need a faith in a reality to confront the theory with possible facts. 

No need for faith in realities means that personal mysticism is up to each one of us and cannot be weaponized by folks like you, who may choose to do so to promote personal positions and credibility. Nobody needs that to proceed with science or metaphysics. One can assume some purposefully undefined pluralism and be done with hierarchical follies, their fascisms, sidestepping problems of the one and the many, including the deification of some lonesome subject who would think through existence, give it conditions and arbitrary hierarchies with heavy ethical burdens that may be conceptually unsolvable anyway, as well as perform the gullible pacifying Christian things, like accounting for the subject's origins and losing ourselves in defending unclear notions like consciousness and souls.

Purists and fanatics will always try to sell us the "truth thing" via some dialectical strategy of those bad other guys, or mistakes of the world, filled with physicalist fanatics for example, and will always emerge as messiahs insulting every intelligence in existence. And this doesn't cut it as metaphysics anymore. It's the conspiracy trick. Rhetorical flourish. Concrete metaphysics/philosophy will never be obtained by weighing the inadequacy of some supposed enemy or ideal, your physicalists for example against the inadequacy of the arithmetical realist and all the shit he can't explain => such metaphysics just concedes its inadequacy. Bad build quality. Even with infinite posts, Bruno. Purists will fail to account credibly for too many things and guys like me will always find the dirty secrets, your prostitutes, zombies, fridges in the sky, rhetorical trickery... and we'll call them out when you play preacher of science, truth, probity, and arbiter of morals and inquiry for others. 

You may never get the perfect singular thing by correcting a generality like some supposed physicalism with another unclear generality like some supposed arithmetical realism. And if you think you can, you'll need an extraordinary amount of convincing evidence beyond speculative hunches and generalized logical fits and possible validities at abstract propositional levels. All of Bruce's, Brent's, all phycisists', AND all scientists' Christmas wishes, in every branch have to be fulfilled, addressed, and optimized. Particularly with ontological claims this expansive: the burden of proof must remain equally vast. You have not achieved this, nor demonstrated its tractability, therefore "mechanism" is insufficient and unconvincing for now. 

And guess what: not assuming some reality assumes your ability to explore and share your own mysticism. It values that to such an extent that it should be a general duty of citizenship but specifically not to impose a nativism or purism in the way others perceive the world and the commons. More genuine modesty and respect than "mechanism" on its infinite ontological police trip. A pluralism of diversity, aiming towards the benevolent avoidance of corruption and crime with a more or less pronounced emphasis of the value of the separation of powers and independent inquiry. And such metaphysics can have practical application because the environment is unclear and unspecified! 

Besides jazz and the pursuit of sexiness, we green buildings, walls, and roofs. We do biodiversity studies and try to preserve systemic plurality, not for some ideological trip, but because plurality of species in an area prevents desertification. Survival in style, open for optimization. Similar in politics and education: we don't need monoculture, puristic hierarchical thinking. That's corporations and spy industry running on cynical metaphysics of advertising and power, which places science in hiding. It's well-organized abuse even if all those folks have good hearts. And without some purist perfectionism we can still make deals with their agents, treat them with respect the way we treat ourselves, collaborate on a level where we get the most for common futures as far as we can see, confront them on what we believe to be the central issues, and work to limit our usual tendencies towards self-destruction in short term gain. With all the crazy shit out there, I also see more and more folks relating to these notions.

And that's infinitely better than whining about perfect ontologies and their/our credibility. Doing it: everybody thinking, listening, acting, speaking up and sharing their personal awesomeness and their unique special thoughts. And guess what? The world is so full of opportunity these days, I don't feel a need to insult your intelligence with some well-specified ensemble theory, my company's name, even my name, or another book. 

The ensemble idea of this list could well be a trap/unsolvable and deserves to be argued against if we're indeed critical. Hence my continued presence as wolf arguing against them. Now you'll say "But without clear assumptions to have faith in: that is unclear! You could be manipulating me!" and I'll reply to you that whatever complete, unified picture you present, I could raise the same objection. Cards on the table doesn't mean we're not being robbed. 

Here's a problem for mechanism: If I rob you, while telling you honestly why I am robbing and manipulating you, confessing my own ignorance, then comp validates that as a truthful, sincere act. Sorry, but that's horrible metaphysics.

With some less specified pluralism: any agent taking resources from another has to find compensation for preservation of possibilities and diversity's sake. Working on the metaphysics and laws that stop incentives to rob ourselves, as the unbalanced transfer of resources just weakens us systemically, would be higher priority than ontological whining and hair splitting. The strength in weakness. PGC