I will comment asap, but first resend you message as you ask me to do.
John wrote:
Début du message réexpédié :
> De: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
> Date: 21 mars 2006 23:41:38 GMT+01:00
> À: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> Objet: Réexp : Posting error: Everything List
> Répondre à: jamikes.domain.name.hidden
>
>
> Dear Bruno,
> I sent the text below to the list and got it back as
> being kicked out from the list.
> The reason:
> I asked to validate my <jamikes.domain.name.hidden> new, second
> address as well, so I can send posts from both
> mailboxes.
> Boring.
> May I ask you to post my text now, exceptionally,
> until I will straighten out the situation?
>
> Merci beaucoup
> votre
> John Mikes
> ===================================================
> --- noreply.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>
>> From: noreply.domain.name.hidden
>> To: jamikes.domain.name.hidden
>> Subject: Posting error: Everything List
>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:32:20 +0000
>>
>> You do not have permission to post to group
>> everything-list. You may need to
>> join the group before being allowed to post, or this
>> group may not be open to
>> posting.
>>
>> Visit
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/about
>> to join or learn more about
>> who is allowed to post to the group.
>>
>> Help on using Google Groups is also available at:
>> http://groups.google.com/support> Date: Tue, 21 Mar
> 2006 14:32:16 -0800 (PST)
> =====================================================
> --------------------------------------------------------
>> From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
>> Subject: Re: Numbers - Evolution
>> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 20-mars-06, à 17:31, Georges Quénot wrotet :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think that modern physics and the synthetic
>>>>> theory of evolution provide a resonable (though
>>> partial)
>>>>> account for the "technical" capabilities of the
>>> human
>>>>> mind.
>>>
>>> I want add something. Evolution provides an
>>> explanation of the
>>> technical ability of the human mind. But those
>>> technical ability are
>>> generally limited to third person describable
>>> phenomena. It does not
>>> explain the first person feature (including
>>> consciousness). The UDA at
>>> least shows that evolution, if you base it on
>>> physics, will lose the
>>> first person feature. That is why so much
>>> physicalists are tempted to
>>> just "eliminate consciousness", either literally
>> or
>>> under the label
>>> "epiphenomena", or just "uninteresting"!.
>>> But I believe more in consciousness than in
>> anything
>>> else, and any one
>>> understanding the sentence "headache are annoying"
>>> do, so elimination
>>> of consciousness is really like omitting data.
>>> But then, unless the UDA reasoning is wrong,
>>> eventually the
>>> comp-or-weaker hypothesis leads to an elimination
>> of
>>> stuffy or primary
>>> matter. It is easier, after all to explain the
>>> dreamy *appearance* of
>>> matter from a consciousness theory, than to
>> explain
>>> the disappearance
>>> of the lived consciousness from a theory of
>> matter!
>> *
>> 2 points to that from my earlier positions:
>> *
>> EVOLUTION.
>> I concluded after much speculation that in "my
>> narrative" I will call evolution the history of this
>> universe from its origination to its re-dissipation
>> into the infinite dynamic invariance (what I call
>> 'plenitude'). As for its mechanism I find it
>> reasonable to ASSUME (yes, Bruno, I use this word)
>> that in the wholistic total interconnectedness of
>> everything (pertinent to THIS universe, of course)
>> ANY
>> (and all) changes occur by effects we register or
>> not.
>> In our narrow terrestrial view SOME are applicable
>> for
>> further changes, some not. These are the dead ends
>> 'evolutionary science' does not even talk about - or
>> call them 'extinct'.
>> So 'evolution' does not 'provide explanations'. It
>> happens and we partially observe the happenings. We
>> have no idea at which stage 'evolution' stands now:
>> close to the beginning or the end.
>>
>> CONSCIOUSNESS: which 'kind' are you talking about?
>> The
>> noumenon is unrestrictedly applied to the needs and
>> taste of all researchers involved with such domains.
>> My variation was deemed a 'functional' type, vs the
>> awareness. neurological etc. types. I extended 'MY'
>> Ccness ID into the entire (universe-al) inventory by
>> saying: it is
>>
>> "Acknowledgement of - and response to -
>> information"
>> Information in this sense is any absorbed/obsderved
>> difference by anything/anybody. Memory is response
>> (mental or what some call: material built-in
>> memory).
>>
>> Just my thoughts, from more than a decade ago. Info
>> may include an ion-reaction or the Magna Charta. It
>> is
>> like Hal's 'first description' from the same time vs
>> his recent position: I am changing my views as well.
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>> John
>>
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Mar 25 2006 - 12:55:58 PST