Hi, Bruno; you wrote (see below):

"Doesn't amoebas split in two?"

I did not expect from you to quote 1 (ONE) case that does not comply with a
general statement as 'evidence', especially when this 1 case is a figmentous
conclusion from the "physical world's"  reductionist science.
(- Even 78 additional cases won't do. -)
Your Wash-Moscow idea is just that: a human figment to 'prove' something
outrageous<G>
Furthermore (and I may disagree in civilian justice systems: they punish
crimes by order (maffia etc.) and don't by "just??" wars):

"Or of any justice system.
If not, we should substitute all jails for asylums. *Perhaps we should?"*

Funny you question this: a niece of mine will defend her thesis for Ph.D.
next week in
'restorational judiciary': mitigating between victim and perpetrator and
"curing" the mind of the criminal into societal compliance. She had lectures
and studies in several countries.
If you are interested I can send you a lecture she delivered at a Barcelona
Conf. (in Eng).
The dissertation is in Hungarian.
*
On 'free will' - I remember the old discussion, I did not agree but kept out
of it. I still find the religious dominance inventing it for its power.
You wrote:

"I believe that "free-will" is compatible with determinism (old discussion).

Free will is a form of self-determinism."

That does not make a logical sense to me:
"self-determinism" is based on the content of one's personal experience
(colored by genetic dissposition) and concerning relational input.
To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all. Self or not
self: it is a consequence.
*
Consciousness? your agreement
("We agree on this.") looks like pertinent to the last remark only, the same
'no reply' as I mentioned in my text.
BTW: my definition is very close to my version of the 'Observer': a
(conscious?) spectator, acknowledging (reacting to?) information (i.e.
change).
It all boils down to 'relations' and their inter connectedness in the
totality.
I wonder if your 'numbers system' includes relational differentiation, or
ONLY the blank figures? If it does, it is only a language for describing the
totality (and a simplified one at that). (I seek more diversified
descriptions. )

Sorry for nitpicking

John
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Hi John,
>
> > Bruno,
> > I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better.
> > Two words, however, I picked out:
> >
> > 1. bifurcate
> > I consider it a human narrowness to expect "anything" to split in TWO
> > (only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'.
> > It has unlimited varants and the choices come under the 2nd word I
> > picked out:
>
> Doesn't amoebas split in two?
> Assuming Everett is correct, doesn't observers split in many when
> observing a superposed states?
> Assuming comp, am I not splitting in two, from a third person
> perpective in the duplication Washington-Moscow?
>
>
> >
> > 2. (free?) WILL
> > The 'Free Will' is the invention of the religious trend to invoke
> > responsibility and punishment.
>
> Or of any justice system. If not, we should substitute all jails for
> asylums. Perhaps we should?
>
>
> > In 'my' position-kind even 'Will" implies some personal(?) decision
> > instead of a deterministic consequence of relations all over acting
> > upon the observed change of the observed item.
>
> I believe that "free-will" is compatible with determinism (old
> discussion). Free will is a form of self-determinism.
>
>
> >
> > As for the elusive consciousness?
> > 'my' attempt to find some generalized and widened identification for
> > all those different things people (as is said) 'everybody knows what
> > it is' (but many in different ways <G>), I ended up with the ID (first
> > published 1992):
> >        Acknowledgement of and response
> >                 to information (changes?)
> > (considering it rather a process than only an 'awareness'.) I posted
> > this on several lists for psych, mind, consciousness, even diverse
> > complexities and did NOT get a refusal over the 15 years). Acceptance
> > neither. So I thought: Si tacent, clamant (or dormiunt?)
> > I hold one thing for sure: Ccness (whatever it may be) is NOT a
> > 'thing' callable 'physical'.
>
> We agree on this.
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to