Maybe Gabby. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Soul is avoiding the self-evidently wrong? That's it, you mean? > > Am Montag, 9. März 2015 schrieb RP Singh <[email protected]>: > > Gabby, Allan already has a soul dictionary--- view his sig line. >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:29 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I have defined Allan (Al, if you prefer the short form) as the >>> intelligent agent who wants to see his idea of Soul sort of fleshed out. >>> Why not? Building a project glossary is not so unusual. Allan seems to be >>> most interested so might as well let him start a test ballon in which he >>> tries to identify his idea of soul in what we say and put his findings in >>> an extra thread or extra glossary software, if he wishes. We could give him >>> feedback and make suggestions for alterations and in the end have a product >>> called "Allan's Soul Dictionary (ASD)" and would all be happy ever after... >>> >>> Am Montag, 9. März 2015 schrieb archytas : >>> >>>> Of course, one cannot get far in AI without defining what an >>>> intelligent agent is. Maybe AI is soul, seeking to free itself from our >>>> biology or Gabby's stuck time loop? >>>> >>>> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:29:39 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So could you. Even my machines have a 'this didn't work before' >>>>> routine and 'try something else'. Would a reboot help? >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:10:18 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But you could help to build a repository of meaningful content for >>>>>> the soul, at least in our context here. This is what I suggested before. >>>>>> If >>>>>> you want to, I can go back and find that posting for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am Montag, 9. März 2015 schrieb : >>>>>> >>>>>> Primate chatter makes more sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have little to no doubt that you can create a program or programs >>>>>> to mimic human behavior. Hopefully eliminating poor behavior in getting >>>>>> hung up in endless loops . .. which can be of great advantage.. at the >>>>>> same >>>>>> time it can get trapped in loops from which it can not escape making the >>>>>> same error endlessly.. another human trait. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just because you can mimic human thinking and logic flawlessly. The >>>>>> real problem is is logic can not create a soul.. probably because so >>>>>> little >>>>>> is known or understood.. to me that is the major problem with Artificial >>>>>> intelligence. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين >>>>>> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: archytas <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Sent: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 1:58 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the missing themes in social epistemology is that people might >>>>>> have already worked out the 'great theory of coerced oppression' >>>>>> themselves. The theory then just tells everyone what they knew from >>>>>> experience. Huge numbers of people think the stuff naive in the face of >>>>>> obvious power. We then kow-tow like dogs in a pack or chimps under the >>>>>> alpha (a 'political appointee'). Teaching is a kind of suppressing fire >>>>>> in >>>>>> this view. A lot of biological metaphors make sense here. Insect >>>>>> consensus, the ability of parasites in control, leadership bringing sex >>>>>> and >>>>>> huge biological change - and I defy anyone to listen to primate chatter >>>>>> without recognizing Parliament. >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows 7 comes in home, professional and ultimate. Any disk version >>>>>> you buy actually has all the versions on it and a small bit of program >>>>>> gives you access to all versions (but you still need the MS product key >>>>>> to >>>>>> activate). Humans may be held in something like this condition, switched >>>>>> off from Molly's higher planes. One sees this all over the plant and >>>>>> animal world, plus cascade genetics and the managing HOX genes (snakes >>>>>> could have legs etc) - some developmental switch makes most of the >>>>>> difference, not the actual genes. Bees can actually reprogram themselves >>>>>> between nurse and forager. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do sometimes wonder if we could bring human change by identifying >>>>>> the micro-organism that rules us, like drunken ants staggering to their >>>>>> doom at lunar noon under fungal influence! Habermas ain't the antidote, >>>>>> though he does tell us someone else has thought some of it through as we >>>>>> might have guessed. I think machines can help much more than we admit. >>>>>> Though we also separate the machines from matters like love and caring >>>>>> for >>>>>> a deaf child. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:18:21 AM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, Francis, to all the mad stuff you are doing! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 10:34:26 PM UTC-4, frantheman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't worry, Neil, I haven't sold out and swallowed the academic bait >>>>>> with hook, line and sinker! There is, as you often and rightly point out, >>>>>> an immense amount of waffle in the whole academic business, frequently >>>>>> clothing platitudes, or very small ideas in pages of obfusticating >>>>>> gobbledegook, all of it referenced with hundreds of footnotes to show >>>>>> everyone how clever and diligent you are. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I mentioned earlier, I have - after a break of nearly 30 >>>>>> years - once more formally engaged with the academic world, and am just >>>>>> finishing the first semester of a Masters programme in cultural studies. >>>>>> However I'm fortunate that I have no great ambitions to make a career out >>>>>> of it, nor am I compelled to do so. I still work at an honest job to >>>>>> make a >>>>>> living, though I have been able to cut down my working hours to the >>>>>> extent >>>>>> that I now get by with doing eight night-shifts per month, looking after >>>>>> four chronically seriously ill children. - - >>>>>> >>>>>> - - (short pause in writing this to detach a seven year hellion from >>>>>> her respirator and monitor so that she can go to the bathroom, followed >>>>>> by >>>>>> a discussion in sign-language (she's deaf), making it clear to her that >>>>>> she >>>>>> must go back to sleep as it's only two thirty in the morning and she has >>>>>> to >>>>>> go to school tomorrow. She may have many health issues, but for all that >>>>>> she's a typical seven year old, with an infinite capacity for negotiation >>>>>> about stuff she doesn't feel like doing) - - >>>>>> >>>>>> - - Furthermore, I am immensely fortunate to live in a country where >>>>>> third level education - at state universities (and the *Fernuniversität >>>>>> Hagen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FernUniversit%C3%A4t_Hagen> *is >>>>>> a fully recognised state university on the Open University model) is >>>>>> nearly >>>>>> completely free - it costs me € 300 per semester ... read it and weep, >>>>>> American readers! Now that my daughters are independently earning their >>>>>> own >>>>>> living,I've no one to look after except myself, which makes it all >>>>>> financially possible without having to go into horrific debt or live on >>>>>> bread and water in an unheated garret. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cultural Studies is an unusual beast. It was invented around thirty >>>>>> to forty years ago by Literature Departments to stave off their widely >>>>>> perceived danger of drifting into terminal irrelevance and extinction. In >>>>>> Hagen it's organised jointly by the (German) Literature Department and >>>>>> the >>>>>> History Department (which identifies strongly with a sociological >>>>>> approach <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_School> to history >>>>>> and regards Max Weber as being only marginally inferior to God). As >>>>>> someone >>>>>> embarking on this intellectual journey, I do feel a certain need to try >>>>>> to >>>>>> identify my own particular standpoint with respect to all the diverse >>>>>> intellectual/academic directions, currents, schools and outlooks which >>>>>> one >>>>>> encounters in this area. All the more so as the specific subject of the >>>>>> Masters programme glories in the title "European Modernity." Sort of, >>>>>> "everything you wanted to know about the past two hundred and fifty years >>>>>> but were afraid to ask ... or answer." >>>>>> >>>>>> The more I read in this whole area, the more I find myself being >>>>>> stimulated and excited by the various *turns *in postmodernist >>>>>> thinking. Lyotard's scepticism regarding metanarratives (which you >>>>>> mentioned) echoes with me, as does a lot of stuff that Frederic Jameson >>>>>> writes - his analyses of particular works of modern architecture are >>>>>> great. >>>>>> Of course there's an awful lot of pretentious academic wanking around >>>>>> too, >>>>>> but at the moment I'm still at the stage of enjoying having my mind and >>>>>> concepts extended. If only there weren't such annoying things such as >>>>>> exams >>>>>> and reaserch papers (I'm currently trying to finish one on the >>>>>> protoindustrial development of the textile industry in the Duchy of >>>>>> Berg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergisches_Land> from 1700 to >>>>>> 1820 ... yawn!), but that's the price I have to pay for getting formally >>>>>> involved in the academic business once more. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course I'm not going to save the world with any of this, but there >>>>>> is a great feeling of liberation in studying just for fun. And I can now >>>>>> once more officially regard myself as a student, which means I don't have >>>>>> to get up early in the morning if I don't feel like it. And maybe do all >>>>>> kinds of other mad stuff ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Am Sonntag, 8. März 2015 13:07:42 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose the collected works of Habermas and Luhmann would be about >>>>>> the size of a big wardrobe. I am not a believer, though find Habermas >>>>>> very >>>>>> tempting, "Descartes" (thought of in a long line that might include >>>>>> Molly >>>>>> and Orn) is about the pursuit of truth and this continues in social >>>>>> epistemology, dropping the solus ipse to a considerable extent - we >>>>>> certainly no longer hew to rigid introspectionism - though we can ask >>>>>> 'did >>>>>> we ever'? Molly and Orn don't work as people like that, though stand up >>>>>> well as examples of people trying for something I have deep respect for >>>>>> (there are some key epistemic issues in this - resolvable I think in >>>>>> terms >>>>>> of people who want peace and justice). >>>>>> >>>>>> "Whereas Descartes thought that truth should be pursued only by the >>>>>> proper conduct of "reason," specifically, the doxastic agent's own >>>>>> reason, >>>>>> social epistemology acknowledges what everyone except a radical skeptic >>>>>> will admit, namely, that quests for truth are commonly influenced, for >>>>>> better or for worse, by institutional arrangements that massively affect >>>>>> what doxastic agents hear (or fail to hear) from others. To maximize >>>>>> prospects for successful pursuits of truth, this variable cannot sensibly >>>>>> be neglected." >>>>>> >>>>>> This paragraph could do with some Chris-style 'stripping for >>>>>> translation'! Doxastic agents! It is surely 'bleedin' obvious' we are >>>>>> people of cultures. At risk of Gabby's wrath, I will mention again these >>>>>> cultures are Bacon's Idols. Feminism is a good example of a social >>>>>> epistemology in bringing out the male domination of control fraud >>>>>> knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> The message, eventually, after reading several wardrobes,, is that we >>>>>> are largely being being had through culturally transmitted control >>>>>> frauds. >>>>>> The questions really concern how we could do something better and how we >>>>>> can tell people they are being conned (a very difficult matter). Debates >>>>>> on epistemology that people can't understand, framed in academic ways of >>>>>> making livings, involving complex literacy and numeracy, hardly form >>>>>> anything easily translatable - the ways of making academic livings also >>>>>> control frauds. >>>>>> >>>>>> If one looks at a small area like forensic science, where on might >>>>>> assume well understood science would produce easily translatable facts, >>>>>> we >>>>>> get a lot of human corruption. The proper function of forensic science >>>>>> is >>>>>> to extract the truth. This function, unfortunately, is not well served by >>>>>> current practice. Saks et al. (2001: 28) write: "As it is practised >>>>>> today, >>>>>> forensic science does not extract the truth reliably. Forensic science >>>>>> expert evidence that is erroneous (that is, honest mistakes) and >>>>>> fraudulent >>>>>> (deliberate misrepresentation) has been found to be one of the major >>>>>> causes, and perhaps the leading cause, of erroneous convictions of >>>>>> innocent >>>>>> persons." One rogue scientist engaged in rampant falsification for 15 >>>>>> years, and another faked more than 100 autopsies on unexamined bodies and >>>>>> falsified dozens of toxicology and blood reports (Kelly and Wearne 1998; >>>>>> Koppl 2006, Other Internet Resources). Shocking cases are found in more >>>>>> than one country. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kelly, J. F. and Wearne, P. (1998), Tainting Evidence: Inside the >>>>>> Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, New York: The Free Press. >>>>>> Koppl, Roger (2005), "Epistemic Systems," Episteme: A Journal of >>>>>> Social Epistemology, 2 (2): 91–106. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are affected by this in very practical ways. My contention is >>>>>> most of the problems could be brought to obvious light. We are 'allowed' >>>>>> the epistemological, but not practical action. Francis' hammock is in >>>>>> the >>>>>> right place, the metaphor replete with the quiescence involved in framing >>>>>> oneself as an academic (which Francis obviously isn't in the best sense I >>>>>> can mean that). I once 'fitted up' a paedophile for other crimes - he >>>>>> had >>>>>> committed them, so technically it wasn't a fit up. The institutional and >>>>>> legal barriers were too big to fight and still are. It got him off the >>>>>> streets for a couple of years, though he continued after release. Ugly >>>>>> Ray >>>>>> Terret has just been retrospectively convicted and given 25 years. One >>>>>> might think we could address the issues of social epistemology through >>>>>> practical examples everyone can grasp. Indeed, Kopl tries. Yet the >>>>>> ideologies of soaked-up knowledge, various COWDUNGS (conventional wisdoms >>>>>> of dominant groups) make this an act of heretic courage. There are still >>>>>> people who can't take the idea that, say, if born in the Muslim world >>>>>> they >>>>>> would be Muslim. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the West we are dominated by neo-liberalism and economic blather. >>>>>> Even if we vote to change this, as the Greeks just have, what can any >>>>>> politicians do confronted with the 'smoke filled rooms' they enter off >>>>>> the >>>>>> corridors of power with warnings that anything other than austerity will >>>>>> lead to disaster? Economics is largely a lie through which dominance is >>>>>> exerted and the West (now largely under the US military umbrella) 'stays >>>>>> ahead' - and who sensibly would not want this shield against even worse >>>>>> domination from elsewhere? >>>>>> >>>>>> There have been people talking about positive money, democratic >>>>>> foreign policy and radical democracy for more than 100 years. Yet in >>>>>> politics we get to vote for main parties making jawbs-groaf promises >>>>>> within >>>>>> neo-liberalism, corrupt banking and utterly false notions on how growth >>>>>> is >>>>>> achieved and what it should be. The real dialogue is made invisible, and >>>>>> Francis' hammock, if right in immanent academic consideration, is part of >>>>>> bearing witness before the crash. I'm not suggesting Francis is doing >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to think global and beyond. Yet look what globalisation has >>>>>> done so far and what we fear leaders will do whatever they spout. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 2:35:19 AM UTC, frantheman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheldon Cooper of *The Big Bang Theory *justifies his claim always >>>>>> to be right thus: "If I were wrong I would know it!" >>>>>> >>>>>> Am Sonntag, 8. März 2015 02:25:40 UTC+1 schrieb frantheman: >>>>>> >>>>>> What a wonderful overview, Neil! I envy your capacity to cook down >>>>>> the huge amount of controversy involving epistemology, sociology, >>>>>> ideology, >>>>>> modernism and post-modernism into a few comprehensible paragraphs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I find myself suspended between the kind of modernism >>>>>> proposed by Habermas and the various post-modernist critiques of it. Not >>>>>> always an easy (or consistent) position, I'm trying to figure out a way >>>>>> to >>>>>> construct a hammock on the basis of this suspension which allows me to >>>>>> comfortably swing from one to the other as I please. And didn't someone >>>>>> once comment that consistency is the privilege of small minds? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If critical theory has established anything, it's that the old >>>>>> metaphysical arguments about ontology and "das Ding in sich" are just a >>>>>> waste of time. We can't ultimately get out of our skins; our knowledge is >>>>>> *human *knowledge, worked out and communicated in *human *terms, and >>>>>> as such it will always have a cultural and societal framework. Such >>>>>> frameworks are dynamic, interacting with each other, growing, changing >>>>>> ... >>>>>> organic really - which is no wonder, given that humans are organic >>>>>> beings. >>>>>> "Pure" rationality is a chimera, because as humans we can only think in >>>>>> human categories. Should we ever encounter aliens, I suspect that the >>>>>> intercommunication would be difficult, frustrating and endlessly >>>>>> fascinating, because they might very well structure their thinking >>>>>> according to other categories (that's why they can travel faster than >>>>>> light, by the way, their way of doing logic doesn't see the problem of >>>>>> *e=mc2 >>>>>> – *they just take the interdimensional back-way through their >>>>>> granny’s garden. That is if we don’t kill them first, or they run away >>>>>> from >>>>>> us in horror to call the inter-stellar exterminators to come and deal >>>>>> with >>>>>> us because we’re not fit to be let loose on civilized galactic society). >>>>>> And, of course, one of the major – perhaps *the *major >>>>>> characteristic of the inevitable human context of our knowledge is >>>>>> language. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Habermas is wonderfully attractive in his appeal for reasonable and >>>>>> reasoned discourse on societal issues - this conviction that it is >>>>>> possible >>>>>> through dialogue and mutual understanding to reach conclusions which will >>>>>> actually make things better. In the end, of course, he's a good >>>>>> old-fashioned bourgeois liberal who believes in "progress". The problem >>>>>> with him is that he is convinced that his position (and the post-WWII >>>>>> western German society in which he lived in, and which he has worked on >>>>>> forming all his adult life) is the *superior *position (as I said >>>>>> before - typical German philosopher). I become ever more suspicious of >>>>>> people who *know *that they're right - and that everyone else is >>>>>> consequently less right - or to put it more bluntly, *wrong.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is where the post-modernists gleefully point their fingers at >>>>>> him. Denying others absolute truth, he implicitly and pragmatically >>>>>> claims >>>>>> it for himself. (It’s also why he can’t stand them!) On the other hand, >>>>>> the >>>>>> various post-modernist *turns *run the risk (and are repeatedly >>>>>> accused) of falling into complete *laissez-faire *multi-culti, >>>>>> anything-goes relativism. If our truth-values – to which our moral values >>>>>> belong – are societally, historically and culturally conditioned, what >>>>>> right do I have to claim my moral values are better than yours? Weren’t >>>>>> the >>>>>> niggers better off as slaves on the plantation, being looked after by a >>>>>> kind and paternalistic massa, than being condemned to living a constant >>>>>> life of danger, deprivation, drugs and depression in some run-down >>>>>> project >>>>>> in contemporary decrepit Detroit? Or let’s not even bother with spurious >>>>>> justifications, let’s go all the way to social Darwinism; the strong do >>>>>> as >>>>>> they will, and the weak suffer as they must. As it was in the beginning, >>>>>> is >>>>>> now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, at the moment, this is where I find myself intellectually at the >>>>>> moment, gently swinging in my hammock between these two positions. >>>>>> Descartes may have found his answer to doubt in his own affirmation of >>>>>> his >>>>>> self-cognitive rationality (though Dan Dennett >>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained> believes he >>>>>> can define this out of existence), but it’s still a big step to the >>>>>> conviction of the ultimate *rightness *of the particular positions >>>>>> one espouses. Maybe the recognition of the conditionality of our own >>>>>> premises, and the openness to the possibility of their correctibility – >>>>>> while not automatically offering them up as being completely conjectural >>>>>> and relative - is the real prerequisite for meaningful discourse. Or as >>>>>> Oliver Cromwell (normally not someone over-inclined to questioning his >>>>>> own >>>>>> righteousness) once asked the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, “I >>>>>> beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be >>>>>> mistaken!” Of course, that still leaves the question open; how can you >>>>>> even begin to discuss with people who *know *they’re right? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am Samstag, 7. März 2015 12:54:02 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: >>>>>> >>>>>> Good to see you too Don. I'm not much into the nuances of >>>>>> translation stuff, partly because I lack Gabby's skills and Francis' >>>>>> patience. There are many versions of Chris' 'make the language simple >>>>>> enough for translation' angle - one here is called the 'Crystal Method' >>>>>> and >>>>>> is taught to our bullshit bureaucrats, so they can confuse us with >>>>>> smaller >>>>>> words. We scientists got the 'Fog Index', screwed as soon as you use an >>>>>> equation or start talking about attribution tests and extreme value >>>>>> analysis. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see another kind of 'translation'. Habermas is actually quite easy >>>>>> compared with other Germans like Gunter Ludwig on how scientific theories >>>>>> come about. Russell and Whitehead wrote three volumes on why one and one >>>>>> make two and, eventually, were wrong. Things get relative when we try to >>>>>> ground stuff in origin (I was told to remove the word 'stuff' from my >>>>>> thesis as it was too common a word). I translate this complex social >>>>>> stuff >>>>>> into a long line of philosophical effort. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no 'start' or 'origin'. If I mention the pre-Socratics and >>>>>> the pyrrhonists, I know they were much influenced from Persia and India. >>>>>> They at least knew argument can nearly always be made in several >>>>>> different >>>>>> ways that are very difficult to choose between. One gets a line from >>>>>> this >>>>>> stuff to Descartes and that 'I am thinking therefore I am' stuff - I'm >>>>>> more >>>>>> of an I woke up and am still here bloke. Socrates and Bacon more or less >>>>>> said public opinion ain't worth shit and Descartes continued this in >>>>>> radical doubt, supposedly grounded on not being able to deny one's own >>>>>> presence. Actually, there being thoughts does not imply a thinker, and >>>>>> if >>>>>> you doubt everything you are, in fact, doubting nothing and have made >>>>>> doubt >>>>>> into something that can't ground itself. Wittgenstein eventually says we >>>>>> have been arguing over the same terrain for centuries, not resolved >>>>>> anything and thus must be bewitched by the language we are using. So we >>>>>> should know more about language. >>>>>> >>>>>> This turns into what we now call social epistemology, away from the >>>>>> individual introspective sole thinker to something more social. Marx is >>>>>> a >>>>>> classic example and the discipline of sociology. One can split this in >>>>>> many ways, though the standard differences are as follows: >>>>>> " The classical approach could be realized in at least two forms. One >>>>>> would emphasize the traditional epistemic goal of acquiring true beliefs. >>>>>> It would study social practices in terms of their impact on the >>>>>> truth-values of agents' beliefs. A second version of the classical >>>>>> approach >>>>>> would focus on the epistemic goal of having justified or rational >>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>> Applied to the social realm, it might concentrate, for example, on when a >>>>>> cognitive agent is justified or warranted in accepting the statements and >>>>>> opinions of others. Proponents of the anti-classical approach have little >>>>>> or no use for concepts like truth and justification. In addressing the >>>>>> social dimensions of >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
