On 7/21/2012 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
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 <mailto: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 you are arguing that there is nothing new to learn. Why do you
bother participating here? What role are you playing?
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at