Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction - articol despre natura realitatii

Argumente ?

Un articol ce nu citeaza pe nimeni (altcineva) nu e stiinta, e fictiune.

Argumente: ce am scris mai sus.

In orice revista cu sau fara pretentii stiintifice se face intai un scurt rezumat al lucrarii de catre un editor  iar  apoi ( sau in final ) se face o prezentare a autorului - cine e , studii , cariera ,  bibliografie samd.  Acum aici nu e chiar revista stiintifica dar daca initiatorul are pretentii de
atunci sa inceapa  el cu respectul fata de cititor.  
NB In cazul somitatilor sau al lucrarilor intens  mediatizate , pentru usurinta discutiilor , se rezuma cele de mai sus la un minim necesar dar si acela de bun simt.  Nu e nevoie sa subliniez care din calitatile din propozitia anterioara lipsesc .

Daca eu scriu acum 1+1=2, trebuie sa il citez pe Pitagora ? Dar Pitagora pe cine a citat ?

Nu in ultimul rand, observ o predilectie spre barfa, nu spre idei. Era o vorba: great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

Toate intrebarile voastre despre natura realitatii isi vor gasi raspuns in paginile articolului.

I’m not yet satisfied with the understanding of the problem that I’m currently at

I will start by stating that I’m thinking for many years

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

the interested and the more mathematical-oriented reader can try to come up with some more rigorous theory that can then be tested in practice and bring science into its next stage

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

mizeria aia.

De fapt oricine poate sa scrie un articol mai bun.

We thus see that even more primitive qualia are also meanings. And this is true for qualia in
general. The next step in the analysis is to explain how does meaning originates. The word is not a real word because it has no meaning in any real sense. The meaning is merely a physical thing. Because there are only physical qualities, it is in general a meaningless thing.
In general this makes sense because what we mean by "physical qualities" is not actually the physical thing. But the meaning of the word is quite different from the meaning of "physical qualities." The term "sense" does not come from sense. It comes from the "animal senses" but from its "sense," or sense in more general terms. So, "animal senses" as well as "animal senses" are not "physical qualities," but simply "sense qualities" or "synthesized senses." Now there are a few special senses which are not physical characteristics of the animal, because, let us remember, only the sense of the animal has any sense on its side. Also, "animal" means "being or being alone."
So, by saying that you might mean something that exists only in its sensory organs, "sense" simply means that you are in fact physically in action against any kind of sense. In general, not every sense exists in a system.

Stai prost cu intelegerea unui text scris?

In plus: https://en.wikipedia...ens's_razor

Eu cred ca daca imi pun mintea scriu un articol despre constiinta ca fenomen emergent mai bun decat ce vad la astia.

Textul subliniat e din document, restul e scris de AI.

Da un exemplu din articol care este afirmat fara dovezi.

I will start by stating that I’m thinking for many years

In afara de faptul ca e absolut irelevant si un semn de pseudostiinta turbata, stating nu e o dovada. E doar un https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ipse_dixit

Both consciousness will be connected in a complexly irreducible telepathic relation

Unde e dovada pentru tampenia asta?

In articol. Dar pentru asta trebuie sa cunosti literele alfabetului ca sa poti citi.