On 7/15/2012 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> your [SPK] argument above cannot work. For in Darwin the observer emerges
> from computations too, even is physical.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> You are still thinking in reductionist and well-founded terms,
That is to Bruno's credit because that is a mode of thinking that has
worked extraordinarily well over the last few thousand years and even
better over the last few hundred years when the Scientific Method was
invented and that way of thinking emphasized even more. We need more of
that not less!
> assuming a primitive entity that builds up to the more complex.
Well that's exactly what Darwin was talking about, and he explained the
mechanism by which that could happen and that is why some (including me)
say he had the single best idea any human being ever had. And if Darwin was
right and if you know for a fact that there is at least one conscious
observer in the Universe then you know that physical processes can produce
consciousness and consciousness can change physical things.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at