For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper qualia. You will most likely not detect infrared light and others, simply because the black box is not made to detect them.
And there is another thing here: we are not detecting "air movement" or "electromagnetic oscillation", since this is not what qualia do. Qualia are all about meaning, we detect meaning. And that meaning serves evolutionary purposes. I talk about this in the first chapter of my book, where I do an analysis of sounds and colors and show how they are meaning, not something related to any "electromagnetic spectrum". The reason is simple: if they were related to "electromagnetic spectrum", then if you were to not know the order of the colors in the rainbow, then if I were to give you the colors, you would know to put them in order by frequency. But since you cannot do that, colors are not about "electromagnetic spectrum", but are about survival criteria, like red and green for finding fruits in trees and yellow and blue for finding the sun in the sky, etc.
On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 22:19:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:Some people who were born deaf have been given cochlear implants, which give them the ability to hear for the first time. For them, this is new qualia they've never experienced. But it's only possible because of a technical device interfacing with their living nervous system.How does your theory account for this, when brains, and cochlear implants, don't really exist? When qualia cannot be understood in terms of neurology? When purely technical devices don't contain that special something that only conscious beings have?What can you say about "systems of consciousnesses" that would help explain how a given person could suddenly be gifted with entirely new qualia? What would prevent us from gaining access to all sorts of new qualia, by inventing neural prosthetics for detecting infrared light, ultrasonic frequencies, the earth's magnetosphere, and so on?Terren
--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper qualia. You will most likely not detect infrared light and others, simply because the black box is not made to detect them.
And there is another thing here: we are not detecting "air movement" or "electromagnetic oscillation", since this is not what qualia do. Qualia are all about meaning, we detect meaning. And that meaning serves evolutionary purposes. I talk about this in the first chapter of my book, where I do an analysis of sounds and colors and show how they are meaning, not something related to any "electromagnetic spectrum". The reason is simple: if they were related to "electromagnetic spectrum", then if you were to not know the order of the colors in the rainbow, then if I were to give you the colors, you would know to put them in order by frequency. But since you cannot do that, colors are not about "electromagnetic spectrum", but are about survival criteria, like red and green for finding fruits in trees and yellow and blue for finding the sun in the sky, etc.
On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 22:19:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:Some people who were born deaf have been given cochlear implants, which give them the ability to hear for the first time. For them, this is new qualia they've never experienced. But it's only possible because of a technical device interfacing with their living nervous system.How does your theory account for this, when brains, and cochlear implants, don't really exist? When qualia cannot be understood in terms of neurology? When purely technical devices don't contain that special something that only conscious beings have?What can you say about "systems of consciousnesses" that would help explain how a given person could suddenly be gifted with entirely new qualia? What would prevent us from gaining access to all sorts of new qualia, by inventing neural prosthetics for detecting infrared light, ultrasonic frequencies, the earth's magnetosphere, and so on?Terren
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper qualia. You will most likely not detect infrared light and others, simply because the black box is not made to detect them.You don't get to say, in one context, that the brain doesn't exist, and then in another, it's a black box that generates qualia. Not to mention, a black box also has zero explanatory power. I'm asking you directly about cochlear implants, which literally enable the generation of new qualia for deaf people. How does that happen?
I'm color blind. My eyes don't have as many photo-receptors that detect frequencies corresponding to the color red. Because of that, my experience of color is different from ordinary people, and this can be proven. Photo-receptors detect electromagnetic oscillation of specific frequencies, and this leads somehow to the experience of color. If photoreceptors don't exist, how do you explain this?
I'm really looking for explanations I can sink my teeth into. Why am I colorblind, but you're not? And why does it seem to matter that physiologically, you have photoreceptors that I do not have? There are objective facts about our nervous systems that have consequences for subjective experience. We could go through a million examples, including brain damage, drugs, brain tumors, Alzheimers, genetic defects. Should we just throw all those explanatory mechanisms away?
Thanks for reminding me. I didn't see them.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 18:15:41 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper qualia. You will most likely not detect infrared light and others, simply because the black box is not made to detect them.You don't get to say, in one context, that the brain doesn't exist, and then in another, it's a black box that generates qualia. Not to mention, a black box also has zero explanatory power. I'm asking you directly about cochlear implants, which literally enable the generation of new qualia for deaf people. How does that happen?As usual, I'm very careful with the way in which I'm using words. The definition that I'm using for "existence" is the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself. Based on this definition, existence is only ontologically subjective, therefore no objects-independent-of-consciousness exist. So the "brain" regarded as an object-independent-of-consciousness doesn't exist. But a system of interacting consciousness can exist. Therefore we can call that system a "black box" and allow the black box to exist. In the black box, depending on how consciousnesses interact you can have certain qualia and not have others. Cochlear implants enable the generation of new qualia for deaf people in the same way that a bike enable the generation of new qualia for people that never rode a bike before.
I'm color blind. My eyes don't have as many photo-receptors that detect frequencies corresponding to the color red. Because of that, my experience of color is different from ordinary people, and this can be proven. Photo-receptors detect electromagnetic oscillation of specific frequencies, and this leads somehow to the experience of color. If photoreceptors don't exist, how do you explain this?You have a system of interacting consciousnesses from which certain interactions are missing.
I'm really looking for explanations I can sink my teeth into. Why am I colorblind, but you're not? And why does it seem to matter that physiologically, you have photoreceptors that I do not have? There are objective facts about our nervous systems that have consequences for subjective experience. We could go through a million examples, including brain damage, drugs, brain tumors, Alzheimers, genetic defects. Should we just throw all those explanatory mechanisms away?You can still do "science" even in dreams. Even in dreams you can see unicorns flying and conclude that if you jump on their backs, you will be able to fly. It turns out that even though the objects that appear in our consciousness exist only as qualia, they nevertheless obey certain rules. And we can use those rules to do technology. Some people call it "science", but my definition for "science" is the study of existence, and since existence is only ontologically subjective, science is only the study of consciousness.
You really can't see the difference between the way a cochlear implant creates new qualia, versus riding a bike? If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do better than that.
You have a system of interacting consciousnesses from which certain interactions are missing.That doesn't explain anything.
If you're equating science done in dreams and science done in reality, you're a solipsist.
On Friday, 26 April 2019 16:14:07 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:You really can't see the difference between the way a cochlear implant creates new qualia, versus riding a bike? If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do better than that.What is the difference ?
You have a system of interacting consciousnesses from which certain interactions are missing.That doesn't explain anything.It depends to what level you want the explanation to be taken. For the level at which you asked the question, that is the answer. If you ask the question at a more deeper level, like how exactly the difference in light sensitive cells in the eyes ultimately determine the experienced qualia, then I don't know. And nobody does.
If you're equating science done in dreams and science done in reality, you're a solipsist.No. Because I allow for other consciousnesses to exist.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Friday, 26 April 2019 16:14:07 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:You really can't see the difference between the way a cochlear implant creates new qualia, versus riding a bike? If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do better than that.What is the difference ?One introduces a new sense, and the other introduces new experience in terms of senses one already has. If it's too difficult to understand that difference, we can talk about creating a brand new sense to detect, say, the earth's magnetic field, and using a neural implant to feed data about the magnetic field into the brain. I wanted to stick though to something that has already been achieved, and there is no difference in principle between the deaf person with a cochlear implant, and any human getting a technology-mediated sense of the earth's magnetic field.The original question was asking for an explanation of how this new kind of sense qualia could arise when it's mediated by a technological device. I expect this to be a problem for you, because of your insistence that such devices don't exist, and your lack of ability to account for the correspondence between brain states and qualia.
You have a system of interacting consciousnesses from which certain interactions are missing.That doesn't explain anything.It depends to what level you want the explanation to be taken. For the level at which you asked the question, that is the answer. If you ask the question at a more deeper level, like how exactly the difference in light sensitive cells in the eyes ultimately determine the experienced qualia, then I don't know. And nobody does.Do you know what I'm asking for when I ask for an explanation? I'm asking how it works. How to the consciousnesses interact? And how does that interaction create the situation where you can see the full spectrum of visible color, but I cannot?If you don't know, then you have given me no reason at all to take your ideas seriously. You're just doing a bunch of hand-waving. Not only that, you're telling everyone else they're wrong if they don't agree with you. It's a crude strategy, but it's worked miracles for religious evangelists over the millenia. I don't think it'll work here though.
If you're equating science done in dreams and science done in reality, you're a solipsist.No. Because I allow for other consciousnesses to exist.Do you know for sure they do? Or do you just allow for the possibility?
On Friday, 26 April 2019 17:27:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Friday, 26 April 2019 16:14:07 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:You really can't see the difference between the way a cochlear implant creates new qualia, versus riding a bike? If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do better than that.What is the difference ?One introduces a new sense, and the other introduces new experience in terms of senses one already has. If it's too difficult to understand that difference, we can talk about creating a brand new sense to detect, say, the earth's magnetic field, and using a neural implant to feed data about the magnetic field into the brain. I wanted to stick though to something that has already been achieved, and there is no difference in principle between the deaf person with a cochlear implant, and any human getting a technology-mediated sense of the earth's magnetic field.The original question was asking for an explanation of how this new kind of sense qualia could arise when it's mediated by a technological device. I expect this to be a problem for you, because of your insistence that such devices don't exist, and your lack of ability to account for the correspondence between brain states and qualia.I don't think there is any fundamental difference between a new sense and experiences in terms of senses one already has. They are both manifestations of emergence. For example, the auditory domain is not exactly "a new sense". Is just a set of qualia that emerge upon the quale of time. And then it keeps branching: from sounds in one direction you get language, in another direction you get music, etc. So it is itself a "new experience in terms of senses one already has - the sense of time". So the problem is not particular about how a certain "sense" appears, but is the general problem of how qualia appear. Now, regarding how qualia appear, the straight answer is that I don't know. And nobody knows. Nevertheless, I can give some guiding clues. For example, what we call "senses" and their basic qualia appear to be sets of qualia that serve evolutionary purposes. As I also mentioned in another post, red and green appeared to see fruits in trees, yellow and blue appeared to see the sun in the sky. We can imagine something like this: an animal was seeing only shades-of-gray and he was starving. The fruits were right in front of him, but because he didn't have the qualia of red and green, he couldn't see them. So he was one step from dying. And then all of a sudden red and green appeared in his consciousness and he survived. You can take some quantum-suicide view on this: you always continue in the universe in which you remain alive. So this might be a tentative explanation. But of course it is not the full story since in everyday life we keep getting new qualia without our lfie being in danger. So a more general principle must be sought. Of course, that principle will only show us the conditions under which qualia appear, but it will not be able to tell us what those qualia will be. All we will ever be able to do is to subject ourselves to those conditions and see what qualia appear in our consciousness.Regarding your specific example with the implant that appear to be in direct connection with generating auditory qualia, this is not so. The conditions for auditory qualia are already present in the "brain", so that implant will just activate those conditions. But since in the "brain" most probably there are no conditions to sense the magnetic field of the Earth, you will not be able to apply the same strategy. This is not to say that it is impossible for us to sense the magnetic field. It might be possible, but you will have to satisfy some more fundamental conditions.
On Friday, 26 April 2019 17:27:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:The original question was asking for an explanation of how this new kind of sense qualia could arise when it's mediated by a technological device. I expect this to be a problem for you, because of your insistence that such devices don't exist, and your lack of ability to account for the correspondence between brain states and qualia.I don't think there is any fundamental difference between a new sense and experiences in terms of senses one already has. They are both manifestations of emergence. For example, the auditory domain is not exactly "a new sense". Is just a set of qualia that emerge upon the quale of time. And then it keeps branching: from sounds in one direction you get language, in another direction you get music, etc. So it is itself a "new experience in terms of senses one already has - the sense of time". So the problem is not particular about how a certain "sense" appears, but is the general problem of how qualia appear. Now, regarding how qualia appear, the straight answer is that I don't know. And nobody knows. Nevertheless, I can give some guiding clues. For example, what we call "senses" and their basic qualia appear to be sets of qualia that serve evolutionary purposes. As I also mentioned in another post, red and green appeared to see fruits in trees, yellow and blue appeared to see the sun in the sky. We can imagine something like this: an animal was seeing only shades-of-gray and he was starving. The fruits were right in front of him, but because he didn't have the qualia of red and green, he couldn't see them. So he was one step from dying. And then all of a sudden red and green appeared in his consciousness and he survived. You can take some quantum-suicide view on this: you always continue in the universe in which you remain alive. So this might be a tentative explanation. But of course it is not the full story since in everyday life we keep getting new qualia without our lfie being in danger. So a more general principle must be sought. Of course, that principle will only show us the conditions under which qualia appear, but it will not be able to tell us what those qualia will be. All we will ever be able to do is to subject ourselves to those conditions and see what qualia appear in our consciousness.
If you're equating science done in dreams and science done in reality, you're a solipsist.No. Because I allow for other consciousnesses to exist.Do you know for sure they do? Or do you just allow for the possibility?I have 3 ideas that I take for granted in my thinking, because I don't think there is any way to prove them true:1) Other consciousnesses exist.2) Memories are true.3) Reason is true.If you don't take these 3 things for granted, there is nothing much left to do except indulging in hedonism.
That's a move that's not available to you - you cannot reference "evolutionary purposes", because evolutionary purposes do not exist in your theory. You cannot talk about fruits that existed before a consciousness was able to perceive them, because fruits do not exist in your theory. The only move you can make in order to explain the emergence of new qualia is to explain it in terms of the only thing you postulate to exist, namely consciousness. Thus far the only thing you've said about that is that, somehow, consciousnesses interact, and their interaction creates qualia, and the rules qualia appear to obey. But this is just hand waving.
How does one go from seeing black & white to color? How does a deaf person begin to hear sound? The answer you provide must not invoke anything that does not exist in your theory. If you're answer is "I don't know" then I applaud your honesty, but you leave me no reason to accept anything you've said.
Does your theory depend on the existence of other consciousnesses besides your own? Does it fail if there are no other consciousnesses?
What does "memories are true" mean?
What does "reason is true" mean?
On Friday, 26 April 2019 20:16:19 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:That's a move that's not available to you - you cannot reference "evolutionary purposes", because evolutionary purposes do not exist in your theory. You cannot talk about fruits that existed before a consciousness was able to perceive them, because fruits do not exist in your theory. The only move you can make in order to explain the emergence of new qualia is to explain it in terms of the only thing you postulate to exist, namely consciousness. Thus far the only thing you've said about that is that, somehow, consciousnesses interact, and their interaction creates qualia, and the rules qualia appear to obey. But this is just hand waving.There are no fruits. There are systems of interacting consciousnesses. But for some reasons, that are not known to me at this point, that interaction needs fuel, also in form of other consciousnesses. And "fruits" is an external appearance of internal interactions between consciousnesses. So evolution gives you the quale of fruits in order to make you eat them and thus get access to that fuel that allow you to maintain the interaction.
How does one go from seeing black & white to color? How does a deaf person begin to hear sound? The answer you provide must not invoke anything that does not exist in your theory. If you're answer is "I don't know" then I applaud your honesty, but you leave me no reason to accept anything you've said.I already said that I don't know exactly how it happens. Probably there is no alternative: you either see colors or you die. And in one universe you will die, in another you will see colors and live and have offsprings.
Does your theory depend on the existence of other consciousnesses besides your own? Does it fail if there are no other consciousnesses?My theory is more or less just a phenomenological description of my own consciousness. I don't think that "depends" is the proper word. It is in a way inherent in the theory that there are other consciousnesses. One reason is as I mentioned in some other post: the fact that we both hear and see is probably because we are a unification between a consciousness that only sees and another one that only hears.
And this is also grounded in empirical studies in which certain brain regions are related to certain qualia and also in DID where the alters not only differ in their personalities, but you can even have alters that are blind for example, so in those alters the consciousness that sees is not unified with them.
What does "memories are true" mean?Means that if I remember that I had a teddy bear when I was 7 years old, then it means that I really had it, and the world was not just created 1 second ago with all the memories implanted in my consciousness.
What does "reason is true" mean?It means that it makes sense what I'm thinking, and is not all just a delirium.
But some consciousness is poison. I could die just by breathing too much carbon monoxide. Funny thing about carbon monoxide is it has no qualia I can detect. That's why I need a carbon monoxide detector in my house.
How can something affect my consciousness if it has no qualia?
How does one go from seeing black & white to color? How does a deaf person begin to hear sound? The answer you provide must not invoke anything that does not exist in your theory. If you're answer is "I don't know" then I applaud your honesty, but you leave me no reason to accept anything you've said.I already said that I don't know exactly how it happens. Probably there is no alternative: you either see colors or you die. And in one universe you will die, in another you will see colors and live and have offsprings.What's a universe? Why is there more than one? I'm pretty sure you would say universes don't exist if I brought that up.
Does your theory depend on the existence of other consciousnesses besides your own? Does it fail if there are no other consciousnesses?My theory is more or less just a phenomenological description of my own consciousness. I don't think that "depends" is the proper word. It is in a way inherent in the theory that there are other consciousnesses. One reason is as I mentioned in some other post: the fact that we both hear and see is probably because we are a unification between a consciousness that only sees and another one that only hears.It's fair to say that no idealistic theory can completely avoid the charge of solipsism. If you have to assume other consciousnesses, so be it.And this is also grounded in empirical studies in which certain brain regions are related to certain qualia and also in DID where the alters not only differ in their personalities, but you can even have alters that are blind for example, so in those alters the consciousness that sees is not unified with them.Grounded in empirical studies??? Why do you get to make reference to empirical facts, but when the rest of us do, it's all "such and such doesn't exist".
What does "memories are true" mean?Means that if I remember that I had a teddy bear when I was 7 years old, then it means that I really had it, and the world was not just created 1 second ago with all the memories implanted in my consciousness.But what if that teddy bear didn't exist, and your memory of it is a false one? Memory is not infallible.
How do memories get implanted in your consciousness? Gentle reminder: brains don't exist.
What does "reason is true" mean?It means that it makes sense what I'm thinking, and is not all just a delirium.I don't see how you can distinguish between delirium, and whatever the alternative to delirium is, in your theory. The picture you're painting is of a world of qualia, experienced by some uncountable number of interacting consciousnesses, whose interactions form the basis of whatever patterns exist in the qualia. It has no reality beyond itself, no grounding in any principle or reason that I can see. It might as well all be a dream.
--
--
--
--
On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there is, because for any fact X that you assume that you discover, that X is a thought in consciousness.
Evolution is the evolution of consciousness -
I don't see where I borrow anything from materialist ideas. Evolution is deducible directly from looking at qualia. There are no "bodies" that evolve, but consciousnesses that evolve.
Brain scans is scans about systems of interacting consciousnesses - I don't see where I borrow anything from materialist ideas.Otherwise, when you say "my ideas", what exactly are you referring to ? Is not clear to me what you consider my ideas to be. It seems to me that you don't even pay any attention to what I am saying. I don't know what you expect from me. Probably to give you all the answers in the universe. Well... this nobody is able to do. But if you would really pay attention to my ideas, you would see for example that my ideas are able to explain the passage of time, a thing that nobody done before, and in principle is a Nobel prize worth explanation.
On Sunday, 28 April 2019 23:10:31 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:That is, what fact could you discover that would invalidate your ideas?
@Terren, you left out without arguments and you start to insult people ?
On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there is, because for any fact X that you assume that you discover, that X is a thought in consciousness.But I don’t see why this invalidate that there would be something more than my consciousness, for example the possible consciousness of some other.
I don't see where I borrow anything from materialist ideas. Evolution is deducible directly from looking at qualia. There are no "bodies" that evolve, but consciousnesses that evolve.That is what you have to elaborate. I can interpret this favourably (in the mechanist frame) or not. It is a bit too much vague, as I expect, actually, from a theory which assumes consciousness.
No.?? What is self-evident is that there is a consciousness (as Bertrand Russell noted "I" is a construct).
Brent
On 4/29/2019 8:59 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
What is it that I claim ? I only claim that consciousness is all there is. What proof you want for this ? It is self-evident.--
On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:44:39 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:First thing first, you're the one who started insulting people... Secondly, as much as we've asked, you didn't provide any evidence for your delirium.
So do provide a test that could invalidate your claims or keep them for your own entertainment.
Quentin
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.
On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:03:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there is, because for any fact X that you assume that you discover, that X is a thought in consciousness.But I don’t see why this invalidate that there would be something more than my consciousness, for example the possible consciousness of some other.Yes, there are other consciousness. But that's all, because existence itself can only be ontologically subjective.
I don't see where I borrow anything from materialist ideas. Evolution is deducible directly from looking at qualia. There are no "bodies" that evolve, but consciousnesses that evolve.That is what you have to elaborate. I can interpret this favourably (in the mechanist frame) or not. It is a bit too much vague, as I expect, actually, from a theory which assumes consciousness.Just look at human psychology. It is solely for survival and reproduction. All our emotion qualia serve these purposes.
For example look at the users which their beliefs are being threatened how they become aggressive. This is because instinctively they feel that their alpha male domination is being threatened by another male, so they jump to kill him. So all these emotion qualia couldn't have otherwise appeared just by evolution.
All the evolutionary history is included in present day qualia that we have. If you want to find out how the Earth was 1 billion years ago, ask yourself what does the smell of pineapple means for example, and you will find that the quale of pineapple smell has a particular evolutionary reason why it is the way it is.
On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:03:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there is, because for any fact X that you assume that you discover, that X is a thought in consciousness.But I don’t see why this invalidate that there would be something more than my consciousness, for example the possible consciousness of some other.Yes, there are other consciousness. But that's all, because existence itself can only be ontologically subjective.Why?In particular, if you grant the consciousness of other person, that consciousness is not personal-subjective, for me. I need some amount of “independent reality” from me to allow some other to exist.
On 1 May 2019, at 11:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Well, I invite you to formalize red in whatever logic you want, and then work your magic for blind people and make them see red solely by understanding your formalisation.
Good luck!
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:37:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:I know you will not do it, but formalising in first order logic would clarify a lot.
>> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:Unless you can say what kind of fact you could discover that would invalidate your theory, it's a hard no for me.
> Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated.
--
with the reasons that those people invoke to make their killing instincts noble.
Long live the scientific ayan race!
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:Because God's Will is a shitty explanation of reality (it explains precisely zero), and worse, it's been repeatedly abused throughout history to justify all sorts of horrific actions including genocide, torture, theft, and so on.
the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which self-reference finds objects in itself and identifies with those objects. "Existence" is basically that property that makes things with definite properties: red is red, sweet is sweet, etc. So it is a rather precise definition.
Nevertheless, self-reference itself is unformalizable. Self-reference neither exists nor not-exists.
And depending on what other characteristics this peculiar state of affairs fully entails that consciousness later on displays on its own certain characteristics, including evolution that might not necessarily be part of consciousness per se. This is where the difficulties lie: in understanding what unformal entities actually can do, what kind of powers do they have.
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 23:00:30 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:And then once you assume it, you contradict your statement that only consciousness exists.
--
So indeed, only consciousness exists. But there "are" other entities that are unformalizable that have effects on existing entities. Is not a contradiction what I'm saying. Is just how reality is.
--
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which self-reference finds objects in itself and identifies with those objects. "Existence" is basically that property that makes things with definite properties: red is red, sweet is sweet, etc. So it is a rather precise definition.I don't think 'precise' means what you think it means.
Nevertheless, self-reference itself is unformalizable. Self-reference neither exists nor not-exists.The first sentence is false. And the second sentence is neither true nor false. It is meaningless.
And depending on what other characteristics this peculiar state of affairs fully entails that consciousness later on displays on its own certain characteristics, including evolution that might not necessarily be part of consciousness per se. This is where the difficulties lie: in understanding what unformal entities actually can do, what kind of powers do they have.I can't make any sense out of this.
Look, I think you made some progress when you gave a prediction. It really crystallizes your ideas. I now know that you really mean it when you say the physical world doesn't exist. You think that a dog will spontaneously create the ability to see color when it's starving to death. I think that's absurd. Would you be willing to place an actual bet with me on that, say $100? We can figure out later how to settle the bet in a way that doesn't involve killing a dog... I would just like to know you're willing to put your money where your mouth is.
You also never answered my question about where language comes from.
I'm not going to read your articles or your book or watch your videos because you've given me no reason to spend my most precious resource, which is time. Perhaps I'm being closed-minded, but under the assumption that you want as many people to read and consider your ideas as possible, you may want to see my closed-mindedness as the kind of barrier you'll have to overcome with most people. For instance, one sure-fire way to turn people off is to tell them everything they know is wrong, and then offer them nothing useful in return.
Regarding the dog, I would never run that specific experiment because it's unethical. There are potentially other ways to settle the bet, though. If we can generalize your prediction in a way you'd be ok with, then there's potentially other ways we can test it. How about: "conscious beings on the cusp of death will create new qualia in circumstances in which that qualia would enable them to survive." Do you accept that?
Regarding the dog, I would never run that specific experiment because it's unethical. There are potentially other ways to settle the bet, though. If we can generalize your prediction in a way you'd be ok with, then there's potentially other ways we can test it. How about: "conscious beings on the cusp of death will create new qualia in circumstances in which that qualia would enable them to survive." Do you accept that?Ok, and how do you generate the cusp of death ?
Here is an example of a fascinating qualia generation that helped him survive a car accident:
https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1wilson_fde.html
--
--
--
> you cherry-pick what to believe in, against all evidence.
And ? What about the evidence that I gave you ? You are just ignoring it ?
--
--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bafe0745-146e-40cc-86c3-37d0d72c6f6e%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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00fede8e-f966-4585-8dbe-a4c98893ac30%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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e5304b84-2b50-46fb-aff8-dca0de870369%40googlegroups.com.