I will comment asap, but first resend you message as you ask me to do.

John wrote:

Début du message réexpédié :

De: John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 mars 2006 23:41:38 GMT+01:00
À: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Objet: Réexp : Posting error: Everything List
Répondre à:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
===================================================
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Numbers - Evolution
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com




--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to