On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
result in expanding our consciousness?
Tom
What particular (and verifiable) personal interactions
On May 5, 1:27 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
result in expanding our consciousness?
On 04 May 2009, at 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/5/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
...
It seems to me that we agree that physical supervenience leads to
many
absurdities. Is your argument purely academical, or do you think it
can be used to prevent the conclusion that
On 05 May 2009, at 18:19, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
The second question is in the form of, Doesn't C imply D?:
But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
result in expanding our consciousness?
Hi Bruno and Members,
The comment that is made below seems to only involve a single consciousness
and an exterior reality. Could we not recover a very similar situation if we
consider the 1-PoV and 3-PoV relation to hold to some degree over a multitude
of consciouness (plurality). In the
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With just arithmetic, when we stop to postulate a primitive or
ontological material world, all primitive ad-hocness is removed, given
that the existing internal interpretations are all determined, with
their relative
On 05 May 2009, at 22:31, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
With just arithmetic, when we stop to postulate a primitive or
ontological material world, all primitive ad-hocness is removed,
given
that the existing internal
7 matches
Mail list logo
