Your posts have been coming through. You can check
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en yourself to see if your
posts have been received by the group.
- Original Message -
From: John Mikes
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com ; Wei Dai
Sent: Thursday, December 21,
The listserver was experiencing a lot of "computer pain" recently and
that prevented it from function normally :)
John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This is the 3rd time I send a 'test' to myself. I receive list-post on this
gmail address, but my mail does not show up, neither here nor on the
Y
This is the 3rd time I send a 'test' to myself. I receive list-post on this
gmail address, but my mail does not show up, neither here nor on the
YAHOO-mail address I unsubscribed from.
Am I still on the "No e-mail" exclusion?
Or does the listserve not recognise my mailing?
John Mikes
--~--~-
Jef Allbright wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Moral and natural laws.
An investigation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence of
ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some extent, of
science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ, but there is no
convincing some people).
1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brent meeker writes:
> >
> >> > Evolution explains why we have good and bad, but it doesn't
explain
> >> why > good and bad feel as they do, or why we *should* care about
good
> >>
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > > > Brent meeker writes:
> >> > Evolution explains why we have good and bad, but it doesn't
explain >> why > good and bad feel as they do, or why we *should* care
about good >> and > bad
>> That's asking why
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-déc.-06, à 21:32, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my methodology
to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is
"famous" for its many paradoxical thoughts.
It is certainly not a
peterdjones wrote:
Moral and natural laws.
An investigation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence
of ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some
extent, of science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ,
but there is no convincing some people).
As ethical objectivism
Moral and natural laws.
An investigation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence of
ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some extent, of
science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ, but there is no
convincing some people).
At first glance, morality looks as though it shou
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree.
Let me see if I can summarise:
Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs
for a reason, whether that be evolution, what their parents
taught them, or what it says in a book believed to
Hi Maurizio,
Le 11-déc.-06, à 14:29, Maurizio Morabito a écrit :
Hello everybody
I am a 39-year-old male with a Master in Engineering, a scientific
background and an enduring passion for Cosmology
I have been elaborating something along lines similar to Tegmark's
myself for a few years, alb
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brent meeker writes:
> >
> >> > Evolution explains why we have good and bad, but it doesn't explain
> >> why > good and bad feel as they do, or why we *should* care about good
> >> and > bad
> >>
Brent meeker writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Brent meeker writes:
>
>> > Evolution explains why we have good and bad, but it doesn't explain
>> why > good and bad feel as they do, or why we *should* care about good
>> and > bad
>> That's asking why we should care about wha
Le 19-déc.-06, à 21:32, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my
methodology
to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is
"famous" for its many paradoxical thoughts.
It is certainly not a reductio against comp
14 matches
Mail list logo
