On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 12:30:07 PM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote:
It depends what kind of person you are. If you are a depressed person, curing you of cancer will not do any good. On the contrary, if you would have died you would havd gotten a chance at happiness in the next life. *You have to be right. Stop your BS, assuming you know more than you actually do, or get a job, or jerkoff, but no more of your stupidity. AG * On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 21:06:51 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 11:27:28 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: I just opened a topic a while back about the definition of the word "useful" that you keep abusing. Let's remind you: Useful = whatever increases happiness. Useless = whatever doesn't increase happiness. My philosophy, I guarantee you 100%, increases happiness, so is useful. Getting cured of cancer might still let you depressed, so cancer cure is useless. *You can't be very conscious and make such a hugely stupid comment. Don't ya think that being cured of cancer is immensely happier than succumbing to it? AG* On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 19:59:29 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 10:44:42 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 9:53:59 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: How do you expect you can properly fix a car if you don't know how it function ? You just do guesswork, you give it a few kicks and maybe it starts. This is how present-day science works given that it doesn't work based on fundamentals, namely based on the working of consciousness. Sure, you can keep doing research this way: kick it till it works. And you might save a few lives. But if you were start from fundamentals, then you would know exactly what you were doing and you will save 8 billion lives. Not that it would matter at that point, given that at that level of development we will manipulate consciousness to such a degree that we will not even need bodies anymore. *About 60 years ago I met a fellow with your philosophy, a Master of Yoga, an adept at "Traditional Science", author of several books, who claimed with great authority that the problem of cancer had been "solved". He never got cancer but died of a heart failure around age 80 in 2008. AG* *My point is that people with your philosophy often make huge claims, with rarely anything practical forthcoming. For example, during the Covid pandemic, a company named Moderna produced a vaccine in record time, using knowledge of DNA, viruses, etc. They couldn't have done that without the discovery of DNA, which no doubt required by the invention of the Electron Microscope. Talk is cheap. We can do great things in the absence of your vague philosophy. Can you actually DO something useful, or is it all talk? AG * On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 17:17:26 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 8:11:38 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: @Alan. You can do cancer research. But since that research is not based on fundamental ideas about reality, it will be just guesswork: Just try 1000 different drugs and cross fingers that one might work. Instead, if people would actually understand consciousness, they would cure cancer in 1 week. *I might believe that if you were able to contribute ANYTHING to ANY problem discussed here. All I read are grandiose claims with nothing practical forthcoming. AG* On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 17:08:48 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 8:01:18 AM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: You can continue cancer research. But is just like playing World of Warcraft in order to get the legendary gear. *If you get cancer, which is not my wish, you can tell your doctor that the pain and suffering is purely imaginary, not to mention the possible early termination of your life. Now, do us all a favor and cease posting like a fool. AG * On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 16:48:23 UTC+2 John Clark wrote: *You didn't answer my question. Should cancer research be stopped, and if not why not? * On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 9:35 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: You make the classical confusion between epistemology and ontology. Only because you can watch a movie with Spider-Man (epistemology), it doesn't follow that Spider-Man exists (ontology). On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 15:39:31 UTC+2 John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: *>>the question of list moderation would not be relevant at this time if one very recent list member didn't think page after page of nothing but "(:>)" characters was an intelligent rebuttal, and ALL scientific questions of the form "what is the nature of X?" can be answered by simply saying "X does not exist".* *> Of course, given that consciousness is all there is. Why would you waste time talking about things that don't exist ?* *So there's no point in doing cancer research because cancer does not exist? Do I have that right? * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4287ea3e-a7b3-4c80-9cce-3b67cc5723dfn%40googlegroups.com.
