Re: The canal effect
2013/10/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 02 Oct 2013, at 10:35, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/10/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Sep 2013, at 15:56, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called sciences are pure rubbish, while some other disciplines outside of what is now called science are much more interesting. I´, in favor of good science and good philosophy. I consider good whatever knowledge endavour that is not in the hands of wishful thinking. There are too much disciplines that call themselves sciences, as well as others outside that are little more that wishful thinking. Good philosophers are scientists (the Greeks, Maudlin, etc.) Good scientists are philosophers (Einstein, Gödel, etc.) In my youth, the academical philosophy nearby was Marxist propaganda, and today, my opponents ask philosophers to criticize the work by authority, as they admit not seeing one flaw. This makes me think that philosophy is the place where argument per authority are still tolerated. This means that philosophy is a tool to imitate institutionalized pseudo-religion. But above the vocabulary, we might try to just understand each others. Personally, I see science as the perpetual fight against prejudices and any form of certainties. Science is just the attitude of being able to doubt and change their mind, and that spirit can be applied in any domain. The problem with the word science is that it is also being contaminated, from outside and from inside of it. in the same way that philosophy was in the past. It is natural. If you look at charlatans, advertising and different gurus, the world that they use most is science and scientific. But lately sometimes I can not distinguish a scientist in search of fame from a charlatan. And authoritarian arguments or at least abuse of authority are used also in all sciences. There is not such ideal and sane institution of human life that is free of humans. The whitest some institution is, the more it attract power seeking, inmoral and self deceptive people that will try to pervert the rules for his own benefit, and science. Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, often just to get enough funding to survive. Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem. Wait, this is indeed the most fundamental question! The interaction of how knowledge interact with money and power in society and convert itself in beliefs as a system that prevent further knowledge must be an integral part of research. For me this meta-knowledge about knowledge faith and power is a more fundamental question than knowledge itself. These are facts that can be demonstrated with evolutionary game theory!! Even in physical sciences is very hard to get along. Einstein not only was a genius, it was a strongly determined man that wanted to be heard. After reading Jammer's Einstein and Religion, I would say he was a rather good theologian, partially heard and understood by some theologian (like Torrance, which, I was glad was aware of the trap of natural theology). (Especially that my feeling is that somehow Torrance has been trapped, but then probably no more than Einstein itself. But Jammer eludes Everett, and even Gödel's solution to GR (the rotating universes, in which time travel is possible). (It is sad a he was rather fair with Everett in his book on the pohilosophy of QM) I like (in Pale Yourgrau's book on Einstein and Gödel's legacy) when Gödel told Einstein I don't believe in the natural science. He was more Platonist than I thought. But Gödel's missed Church thesis, and that his theorem might be the biggest chance for mechanist philosophy, and the Pythagorean version of Platonism. (Like me and Judson Webb, and some others (including Hofstadter) defend). At last I got an answer to a question I asked myself for a very long time: did Einstein understood at least that Gödel's theorem is a chance for a non trivial fundamental realism in mathematics or arithmetics. The answer is yes, Einstein understood apparently that physics might not be the most fundamental science. But unlike Gödel, he will not conceive that theology might become a science (still less that it *was* a science at the beginning of science in occident). I recommend :) Jammer: http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Religion-Theology-Max-Jammer/dp/069110297X Palle Yourgrau: http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942 Bruno Interesting. I´ll take a look although the natural theology practised by hard scientists is too much biased to hard science quiestions. I have enough of this. I had enough of particles and turing machines. Now I want to understand humans Many texts in human science can easily be transformed in authentic good pieces of science, just by adding some interrogation marks. Being a
Re: The canal effect
2013/9/30 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 9/30/2013 2:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Let me give an example: Free will. That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free will as something debatable. That implicit definition of free will is the straight one and there is no doubt about it. Greek philosophers considered whether the gods pulled our strings like pupeteers, at least occasionally. But of course they didn't consider clockwork determinism - that came after Newton. The jews and christian had more reasons to attack free will, since an all omnipotent omniscient creator God is at odds with the idea that the human being can choose anything. But both wanted not to go against what is evident the naked understanding: the fact that we can choose. Then Judaism and Christianity created a theology compatible with human free will. It isn't really clear that it's compatible. If God both foresees bad action and fails to prevent it, then he fails the test of omnibenevolence. There were some solutions for that. but this not the subject of the discussion. That was a difficult question and there were some early sects that promulgated predestination. That did not happen in the muslim word. I don´t like to cite names but the idea of an omnipotent God was taken to the final consequences. Also the Lutheran and specially calvinists. That is an ideológical negation of what is evident. I mean, it is a negation of what is evident -free will as was defined above- by cause of an idea external to the evidence, -the idea of an omnipotent God. The trouble is that contra-causal free will is not evident. What is evident is a certain feeling and unpredictability (even by oneself). contra-causal why?. If the concept of free-will is according with the definition in the first paragraph, it is compatible with determinism at a lower level . If the circustances determine my conduct , then they also determine my fight agains the circunstances and my doubt about if my circunsances are determined or not, and my moral doubts about what I intend to do. What I can not do, think and feel if these phrases are true, with the word determined that I can do, think and feel if these phrases are false? Nothing. I act, think and feel according with the naked definition of free wll. Therefore we have free will. To compatibilize with the evidence of free will, muslims and christian reformists entered in different forms of fatalism and negation of the primacy of human understanding, so evidences such are the notion of free will were not such evidences, but creations of our wicked nature. (Although the idea of divine love saved protestants from the social starvation that the negation of free will produced in the Muslim world). That has a exact parallel today in the negation of free will by cause of the existence of deterministic laws. Since free will, as defined above is evident, to construct the ideological negation, the contemporaries can not get rid of human understanding, because the human capability for unlimited knowledge is a dogma. I don't know who maintains that!? Can you cite where this dogma is written. The idea that free will is a kind of unpredictability, per Scott Aaronson or Bruno, explicitly depend on the limited knowledge of human beings. It is necessary to redefine free will as something different, for example as some unpredictability as a result of some process in the brain. Here is were the discussions about free will are reduced today. Instead of that I want to stress the evidence of free will. According with the naked definition, it is evident that we have free will. It may be evident that we have it, but it's not evident what it is. As JC notes nobody seems to have a definition of it. To me, that implies we need to look for an operational definition - which is where absence of coercion and unpredictable come in. These are not very definite, since they admit of degrees, but they are in fact what social policy relies on. See above. I´m not saying that the problem is settled. What I´m saying is that it is settled what I´m interersted in. And I´m primarily and above all interested in the definition of free will used by the early phylosophers that asked themselves about free will, and not a derivative issue as a result of some belief or discovery that created a theory that has implications for free will. But at the same time, I strongly suspect that the people mix all these levels in a single one and extract conclussions that are deleterious for his life. I believe, or affirm that knowledge is for living. A confusion of levels can be dangerous. All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the
Re: The canal effect
I forgot to answer the last one: 2013/9/30 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 9/30/2013 2:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Let me give an example: Free will. That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free will as something debatable. That implicit definition of free will is the straight one and there is no doubt about it. Greek philosophers considered whether the gods pulled our strings like pupeteers, at least occasionally. But of course they didn't consider clockwork determinism - that came after Newton. The jews and christian had more reasons to attack free will, since an all omnipotent omniscient creator God is at odds with the idea that the human being can choose anything. But both wanted not to go against what is evident the naked understanding: the fact that we can choose. Then Judaism and Christianity created a theology compatible with human free will. It isn't really clear that it's compatible. If God both foresees bad action and fails to prevent it, then he fails the test of omnibenevolence. That did not happen in the muslim word. I don´t like to cite names but the idea of an omnipotent God was taken to the final consequences. Also the Lutheran and specially calvinists. That is an ideológical negation of what is evident. I mean, it is a negation of what is evident -free will as was defined above- by cause of an idea external to the evidence, -the idea of an omnipotent God. The trouble is that contra-causal free will is not evident. What is evident is a certain feeling and unpredictability (even by oneself). To compatibilize with the evidence of free will, muslims and christian reformists entered in different forms of fatalism and negation of the primacy of human understanding, so evidences such are the notion of free will were not such evidences, but creations of our wicked nature. (Although the idea of divine love saved protestants from the social starvation that the negation of free will produced in the Muslim world). That has a exact parallel today in the negation of free will by cause of the existence of deterministic laws. Since free will, as defined above is evident, to construct the ideological negation, the contemporaries can not get rid of human understanding, because the human capability for unlimited knowledge is a dogma. I don't know who maintains that!? Can you cite where this dogma is written. The idea that free will is a kind of unpredictability, per Scott Aaronson or Bruno, explicitly depend on the limited knowledge of human beings. It is necessary to redefine free will as something different, for example as some unpredictability as a result of some process in the brain. Here is were the discussions about free will are reduced today. Instead of that I want to stress the evidence of free will. According with the naked definition, it is evident that we have free will. It may be evident that we have it, but it's not evident what it is. As JC notes nobody seems to have a definition of it. To me, that implies we need to look for an operational definition - which is where absence of coercion and unpredictable come in. These are not very definite, since they admit of degrees, but they are in fact what social policy relies on. All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the other way around. The trouble is this fact just refers to a personal feeling and so is useless for social policy: Did you feel that you had free will when you shot your husband? This fact is not a personal feeling, but a species-specific function that implies feelings, acts and so on. I mean, it is a part of being human. And this configures the reality that we perceive and according with it we act and judge, and have justice institutions. In the same way that we see color with three types of detectors on the brain and according with it we use certain painting techniques. This is a shared reality as a consequence of having the same human mind structure, the same nature or if you like, the same brain architecture. If that not were that way, you and me would never even communicate and discuss about it. Brent The negation of this is not only to twist the concepts and to reverse the order of science, that normally goes from evidence to theory, but it can also have grave social consequences. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Re: The canal effect
2013/10/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Sep 2013, at 15:56, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called sciences are pure rubbish, while some other disciplines outside of what is now called science are much more interesting. I´, in favor of good science and good philosophy. I consider good whatever knowledge endavour that is not in the hands of wishful thinking. There are too much disciplines that call themselves sciences, as well as others outside that are little more that wishful thinking. Good philosophers are scientists (the Greeks, Maudlin, etc.) Good scientists are philosophers (Einstein, Gödel, etc.) In my youth, the academical philosophy nearby was Marxist propaganda, and today, my opponents ask philosophers to criticize the work by authority, as they admit not seeing one flaw. This makes me think that philosophy is the place where argument per authority are still tolerated. This means that philosophy is a tool to imitate institutionalized pseudo-religion. But above the vocabulary, we might try to just understand each others. Personally, I see science as the perpetual fight against prejudices and any form of certainties. Science is just the attitude of being able to doubt and change their mind, and that spirit can be applied in any domain. The problem with the word science is that it is also being contaminated, from outside and from inside of it. in the same way that philosophy was in the past. It is natural. If you look at charlatans, advertising and different gurus, the world that they use most is science and scientific. But lately sometimes I can not distinguish a scientist in search of fame from a charlatan. And authoritarian arguments or at least abuse of authority are used also in all sciences. There is not such ideal and sane institution of human life that is free of humans. The whitest some institution is, the more it attract power seeking, inmoral and self deceptive people that will try to pervert the rules for his own benefit, and science. These are facts that can be demonstrated with evolutionary game theory!! Even in physical sciences is very hard to get along. Einstein not only was a genius, it was a strongly determined man that wanted to be heard. Many texts in human science can easily be transformed in authentic good pieces of science, just by adding some interrogation marks. Being a physicist, I consider all the stuff about determinism, QM and so on extraordinarily interesting, but it has little to say about the concept of free will that I´m interested in. On the contrary, there are developments in evolution, evolutionary psychology, category theory, game theory and computer science that can say things interesting for the problems that interested to the classical philosophers. All of these disciplines are non reductionists, and can apply to all the levels of complexity. We agree on this. Bruno 2013/9/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many others) saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the Panama Canal was being constructed, and this novelty captivated the imagination of the people. everithing had a solution with a canal. And everything could be solved and explained with mechanics and electricity, the technology that helped to construct the channel. Therefore the Martians was an electric civilization that launched electric discharges. It is necessary to explain what I want to mean?. People throw in novel technologies and theories whatever they have unexplained or unsolved, but also their hopes. But at the end of the day these solutions vomit back what was put in with still new questions. The net effect is the rephrasing of the ancient questions with a new language, passed trough the filter of the solution that dominates the uthopic mind of the people. That language, the one of the particular science that dominates the landscape assures that the ancient questions are reduced to match the particular aspect that can fit in the theory. I personally prefer the original, naked questions as the first ones that though about it, as they appeared in their mind, without the filter of any theory. I think that you are just saying that you prefer philosophy than science. I have no problem, it is a question of taste. In science we prefer precise theories, so that we have the means to improve them or to abandon them. Of course some scientists sometimes talk like if their theory were true, but this means only they do bad philosophy and misunderstand science. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
Re: The canal effect
On 02 Oct 2013, at 10:35, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/10/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Sep 2013, at 15:56, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called sciences are pure rubbish, while some other disciplines outside of what is now called science are much more interesting. I ´, in favor of good science and good philosophy. I consider good whatever knowledge endavour that is not in the hands of wishful thinking. There are too much disciplines that call themselves sciences, as well as others outside that are little more that wishful thinking. Good philosophers are scientists (the Greeks, Maudlin, etc.) Good scientists are philosophers (Einstein, Gödel, etc.) In my youth, the academical philosophy nearby was Marxist propaganda, and today, my opponents ask philosophers to criticize the work by authority, as they admit not seeing one flaw. This makes me think that philosophy is the place where argument per authority are still tolerated. This means that philosophy is a tool to imitate institutionalized pseudo-religion. But above the vocabulary, we might try to just understand each others. Personally, I see science as the perpetual fight against prejudices and any form of certainties. Science is just the attitude of being able to doubt and change their mind, and that spirit can be applied in any domain. The problem with the word science is that it is also being contaminated, from outside and from inside of it. in the same way that philosophy was in the past. It is natural. If you look at charlatans, advertising and different gurus, the world that they use most is science and scientific. But lately sometimes I can not distinguish a scientist in search of fame from a charlatan. And authoritarian arguments or at least abuse of authority are used also in all sciences. There is not such ideal and sane institution of human life that is free of humans. The whitest some institution is, the more it attract power seeking, inmoral and self deceptive people that will try to pervert the rules for his own benefit, and science. Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, often just to get enough funding to survive. Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem. These are facts that can be demonstrated with evolutionary game theory!! Even in physical sciences is very hard to get along. Einstein not only was a genius, it was a strongly determined man that wanted to be heard. After reading Jammer's Einstein and Religion, I would say he was a rather good theologian, partially heard and understood by some theologian (like Torrance, which, I was glad was aware of the trap of natural theology). (Especially that my feeling is that somehow Torrance has been trapped, but then probably no more than Einstein itself. But Jammer eludes Everett, and even Gödel's solution to GR (the rotating universes, in which time travel is possible). (It is sad a he was rather fair with Everett in his book on the pohilosophy of QM) I like (in Pale Yourgrau's book on Einstein and Gödel's legacy) when Gödel told Einstein I don't believe in the natural science. He was more Platonist than I thought. But Gödel's missed Church thesis, and that his theorem might be the biggest chance for mechanist philosophy, and the Pythagorean version of Platonism. (Like me and Judson Webb, and some others (including Hofstadter) defend). At last I got an answer to a question I asked myself for a very long time: did Einstein understood at least that Gödel's theorem is a chance for a non trivial fundamental realism in mathematics or arithmetics. The answer is yes, Einstein understood apparently that physics might not be the most fundamental science. But unlike Gödel, he will not conceive that theology might become a science (still less that it *was* a science at the beginning of science in occident). I recommend :) Jammer: http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Religion-Theology-Max-Jammer/dp/069110297X Palle Yourgrau: http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942 Bruno Many texts in human science can easily be transformed in authentic good pieces of science, just by adding some interrogation marks. Being a physicist, I consider all the stuff about determinism, QM and so on extraordinarily interesting, but it has little to say about the concept of free will that I´m interested in. On the contrary, there are developments in evolution, evolutionary psychology, category theory, game theory and computer science that can say things interesting for the problems that interested to the classical philosophers. All of these disciplines are non reductionists, and can apply to all the levels of complexity. We agree on this. Bruno 2013/9/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Sep 2013,
Re: The canal effect
On 10/2/2013 1:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the other way around. The trouble is this fact just refers to a personal feeling and so is useless for social policy: Did you feel that you had free will when you shot your husband? This fact is not a personal feeling, but a species-specific function that implies feelings, acts and so on. I mean, it is a part of being human. And this configures the reality that we perceive and according with it we act and judge, and have justice institutions. In the same way that we see color with three types of detectors on the brain and according with it we use certain painting techniques. This is a shared reality as a consequence of having the same human mind structure, the same nature or if you like, the same brain architecture. If that not were that way, you and me would never even communicate and discuss about it. So what function would a robot necessarily have in order to have the kind of free will you are interested in? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
2013/10/2 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 10/2/2013 1:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the other way around. The trouble is this fact just refers to a personal feeling and so is useless for social policy: Did you feel that you had free will when you shot your husband? This fact is not a personal feeling, but a species-specific function that implies feelings, acts and so on. I mean, it is a part of being human. And this configures the reality that we perceive and according with it we act and judge, and have justice institutions. In the same way that we see color with three types of detectors on the brain and according with it we use certain painting techniques. This is a shared reality as a consequence of having the same human mind structure, the same nature or if you like, the same brain architecture. If that not were that way, you and me would never even communicate and discuss about it. So what function would a robot necessarily have in order to have the kind of free will you are interested in? The process of evolution of the self, and the development of morals as well as the notions of good and evil in social individuals with memory of past actions and planning capabilitis (that have evolved previously) has been studied by evolutionists and is a field of active research. I have told before about the details here. Although the process is not fully understood and may be that it will never be, because the ease of reverse engineer is not one of the features of evolutionary designs. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
On 30 Sep 2013, at 15:56, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called sciences are pure rubbish, while some other disciplines outside of what is now called science are much more interesting. I´, in favor of good science and good philosophy. I consider good whatever knowledge endavour that is not in the hands of wishful thinking. There are too much disciplines that call themselves sciences, as well as others outside that are little more that wishful thinking. Good philosophers are scientists (the Greeks, Maudlin, etc.) Good scientists are philosophers (Einstein, Gödel, etc.) In my youth, the academical philosophy nearby was Marxist propaganda, and today, my opponents ask philosophers to criticize the work by authority, as they admit not seeing one flaw. This makes me think that philosophy is the place where argument per authority are still tolerated. This means that philosophy is a tool to imitate institutionalized pseudo-religion. But above the vocabulary, we might try to just understand each others. Personally, I see science as the perpetual fight against prejudices and any form of certainties. Science is just the attitude of being able to doubt and change their mind, and that spirit can be applied in any domain. Many texts in human science can easily be transformed in authentic good pieces of science, just by adding some interrogation marks. Being a physicist, I consider all the stuff about determinism, QM and so on extraordinarily interesting, but it has little to say about the concept of free will that I´m interested in. On the contrary, there are developments in evolution, evolutionary psychology, category theory, game theory and computer science that can say things interesting for the problems that interested to the classical philosophers. All of these disciplines are non reductionists, and can apply to all the levels of complexity. We agree on this. Bruno 2013/9/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many others) saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the Panama Canal was being constructed, and this novelty captivated the imagination of the people. everithing had a solution with a canal. And everything could be solved and explained with mechanics and electricity, the technology that helped to construct the channel. Therefore the Martians was an electric civilization that launched electric discharges. It is necessary to explain what I want to mean?. People throw in novel technologies and theories whatever they have unexplained or unsolved, but also their hopes. But at the end of the day these solutions vomit back what was put in with still new questions. The net effect is the rephrasing of the ancient questions with a new language, passed trough the filter of the solution that dominates the uthopic mind of the people. That language, the one of the particular science that dominates the landscape assures that the ancient questions are reduced to match the particular aspect that can fit in the theory. I personally prefer the original, naked questions as the first ones that though about it, as they appeared in their mind, without the filter of any theory. I think that you are just saying that you prefer philosophy than science. I have no problem, it is a question of taste. In science we prefer precise theories, so that we have the means to improve them or to abandon them. Of course some scientists sometimes talk like if their theory were true, but this means only they do bad philosophy and misunderstand science. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: The canal effect
Let me give an example: Free will. That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free will as something debatable. That implicit definition of free will is the straight one and there is no doubt about it. The jews and christian had more reasons to attack free will, since an all omnipotent omniscient creator God is at odds with the idea that the human being can choose anything. But both wanted not to go against what is evident the naked understanding: the fact that we can choose. Then Judaism and Christianity created a theology compatible with human free will. That did not happen in the muslim word. I don´t like to cite names but the idea of an omnipotent God was taken to the final consequences. Also the Lutheran and specially calvinists. That is an ideológical negation of what is evident. I mean, it is a negation of what is evident -free will as was defined above- by cause of an idea external to the evidence, -the idea of an omnipotent God. To compatibilize with the evidence of free will, muslims and christian reformists entered in different forms of fatalism and negation of the primacy of human understanding, so evidences such are the notion of free will were not such evidences, but creations of our wicked nature. (Although the idea of divine love saved protestants from the social starvation that the negation of free will produced in the Muslim world). That has a exact parallel today in the negation of free will by cause of the existence of deterministic laws. Since free will, as defined above is evident, to construct the ideological negation, the contemporaries can not get rid of human understanding, because the human capability for unlimited knowledge is a dogma. It is necessary to redefine free will as something different, for example as some unpredictability as a result of some process in the brain. Here is were the discussions about free will are reduced today. Instead of that I want to stress the evidence of free will. According with the naked definition, it is evident that we have free will. All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the other way around. The negation of this is not only to twist the concepts and to reverse the order of science, that normally goes from evidence to theory, but it can also have grave social consequences. 2013/9/30 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 30 September 2013 12:15, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Although this is lateral to what I wanted to say,... the decline standpoint is just the opposite of the the heaven is coming of the uthopians. The latter is genuinelly western and postchristian (I would say puritan) Yes, interesting idea. Heaven is a place on Earth, indeed? WTF is a good question ;) or... WTF is a good question? (in the same vein as Who is the greatest Doctor!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
On 29 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many others) saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the Panama Canal was being constructed, and this novelty captivated the imagination of the people. everithing had a solution with a canal. And everything could be solved and explained with mechanics and electricity, the technology that helped to construct the channel. Therefore the Martians was an electric civilization that launched electric discharges. It is necessary to explain what I want to mean?. People throw in novel technologies and theories whatever they have unexplained or unsolved, but also their hopes. But at the end of the day these solutions vomit back what was put in with still new questions. The net effect is the rephrasing of the ancient questions with a new language, passed trough the filter of the solution that dominates the uthopic mind of the people. That language, the one of the particular science that dominates the landscape assures that the ancient questions are reduced to match the particular aspect that can fit in the theory. I personally prefer the original, naked questions as the first ones that though about it, as they appeared in their mind, without the filter of any theory. I think that you are just saying that you prefer philosophy than science. I have no problem, it is a question of taste. In science we prefer precise theories, so that we have the means to improve them or to abandon them. Of course some scientists sometimes talk like if their theory were true, but this means only they do bad philosophy and misunderstand science. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called sciences are pure rubbish, while some other disciplines outside of what is now called science are much more interesting. I´, in favor of good science and good philosophy. I consider good whatever knowledge endavour that is not in the hands of wishful thinking. There are too much disciplines that call themselves sciences, as well as others outside that are little more that wishful thinking. Being a physicist, I consider all the stuff about determinism, QM and so on extraordinarily interesting, but it has little to say about the concept of free will that I´m interested in. On the contrary, there are developments in evolution, evolutionary psychology, category theory, game theory and computer science that can say things interesting for the problems that interested to the classical philosophers. All of these disciplines are non reductionists, and can apply to all the levels of complexity. 2013/9/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many others) saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the Panama Canal was being constructed, and this novelty captivated the imagination of the people. everithing had a solution with a canal. And everything could be solved and explained with mechanics and electricity, the technology that helped to construct the channel. Therefore the Martians was an electric civilization that launched electric discharges. It is necessary to explain what I want to mean?. People throw in novel technologies and theories whatever they have unexplained or unsolved, but also their hopes. But at the end of the day these solutions vomit back what was put in with still new questions. The net effect is the rephrasing of the ancient questions with a new language, passed trough the filter of the solution that dominates the uthopic mind of the people. That language, the one of the particular science that dominates the landscape assures that the ancient questions are reduced to match the particular aspect that can fit in the theory. I personally prefer the original, naked questions as the first ones that though about it, as they appeared in their mind, without the filter of any theory. I think that you are just saying that you prefer philosophy than science. I have no problem, it is a question of taste. In science we prefer precise theories, so that we have the means to improve them or to abandon them. Of course some scientists sometimes talk like if their theory were true, but this means only they do bad philosophy and misunderstand science. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
On 29 Sep 2013, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote: On 9/29/2013 4:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Yes. That naive uthopianism is quite recent in history. And it is local to the western world, because it is a deformation of the chirstian concept of salvation. The Greeks thought they had declined from a golden age - long before heard of Christianity. 2013/9/29 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com Hi Alberto Were there ever genuinely naked questions? ie. Was there really a time when ideas were not framed by the exciting possibilities offered by the contemporary technology? And what would be the alternative. The only naked question is, WTF? Excellent point :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
On 9/30/2013 2:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Let me give an example: Free will. That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free will as something debatable. That implicit definition of free will is the straight one and there is no doubt about it. Greek philosophers considered whether the gods pulled our strings like pupeteers, at least occasionally. But of course they didn't consider clockwork determinism - that came after Newton. The jews and christian had more reasons to attack free will, since an all omnipotent omniscient creator God is at odds with the idea that the human being can choose anything. But both wanted not to go against what is evident the naked understanding: the fact that we can choose. Then Judaism and Christianity created a theology compatible with human free will. It isn't really clear that it's compatible. If God both foresees bad action and fails to prevent it, then he fails the test of omnibenevolence. That did not happen in the muslim word. I don´t like to cite names but the idea of an omnipotent God was taken to the final consequences. Also the Lutheran and specially calvinists. That is an ideológical negation of what is evident. I mean, it is a negation of what is evident -free will as was defined above- by cause of an idea external to the evidence, -the idea of an omnipotent God. The trouble is that contra-causal free will is not evident. What is evident is a certain feeling and unpredictability (even by oneself). To compatibilize with the evidence of free will, muslims and christian reformists entered in different forms of fatalism and negation of the primacy of human understanding, so evidences such are the notion of free will were not such evidences, but creations of our wicked nature. (Although the idea of divine love saved protestants from the social starvation that the negation of free will produced in the Muslim world). That has a exact parallel today in the negation of free will by cause of the existence of deterministic laws. Since free will, as defined above is evident, to construct the ideological negation, the contemporaries can not get rid of human understanding, because the human capability for unlimited knowledge is a dogma. I don't know who maintains that!? Can you cite where this dogma is written. The idea that free will is a kind of unpredictability, per Scott Aaronson or Bruno, explicitly depend on the limited knowledge of human beings. It is necessary to redefine free will as something different, for example as some unpredictability as a result of some process in the brain. Here is were the discussions about free will are reduced today. Instead of that I want to stress the evidence of free will. According with the naked definition, it is evident that we have free will. It may be evident that we have it, but it's not evident what it is. As JC notes nobody seems to have a definition of it. To me, that implies we need to look for an operational definition - which is where absence of coercion and unpredictable come in. These are not very definite, since they admit of degrees, but they are in fact what social policy relies on. All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the other way around. The trouble is this fact just refers to a personal feeling and so is useless for social policy: Did you feel that you had free will when you shot your husband? Brent The negation of this is not only to twist the concepts and to reverse the order of science, that normally goes from evidence to theory, but it can also have grave social consequences. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
Brent: I stopped short (but violated this rule many times ) from arguing against the fallacies included in the age-old 'religious' belief systems. The reason: one irate response took me to task: who gave me superiority over HIS (and other's) belief? He was hurt and I don't like to hurt people. Sometimes I cannot resist the urge to 'tell' my opinion, - human weakness. I mostly foul up when I see the fallacy reaching into reigious-based political powermongery. Like the FREE WILL. Or contrtaception, or...(etcG). Lately I turn less patient and become more irritated. Maybe my age? Best regards John M On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/30/2013 2:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Let me give an example: Free will. That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free will as something debatable. That implicit definition of free will is the straight one and there is no doubt about it. Greek philosophers considered whether the gods pulled our strings like pupeteers, at least occasionally. But of course they didn't consider clockwork determinism - that came after Newton. The jews and christian had more reasons to attack free will, since an all omnipotent omniscient creator God is at odds with the idea that the human being can choose anything. But both wanted not to go against what is evident the naked understanding: the fact that we can choose. Then Judaism and Christianity created a theology compatible with human free will. It isn't really clear that it's compatible. If God both foresees bad action and fails to prevent it, then he fails the test of omnibenevolence. That did not happen in the muslim word. I don´t like to cite names but the idea of an omnipotent God was taken to the final consequences. Also the Lutheran and specially calvinists. That is an ideológical negation of what is evident. I mean, it is a negation of what is evident -free will as was defined above- by cause of an idea external to the evidence, -the idea of an omnipotent God. The trouble is that contra-causal free will is not evident. What is evident is a certain feeling and unpredictability (even by oneself). To compatibilize with the evidence of free will, muslims and christian reformists entered in different forms of fatalism and negation of the primacy of human understanding, so evidences such are the notion of free will were not such evidences, but creations of our wicked nature. (Although the idea of divine love saved protestants from the social starvation that the negation of free will produced in the Muslim world). That has a exact parallel today in the negation of free will by cause of the existence of deterministic laws. Since free will, as defined above is evident, to construct the ideological negation, the contemporaries can not get rid of human understanding, because the human capability for unlimited knowledge is a dogma. I don't know who maintains that!? Can you cite where this dogma is written. The idea that free will is a kind of unpredictability, per Scott Aaronson or Bruno, explicitly depend on the limited knowledge of human beings. It is necessary to redefine free will as something different, for example as some unpredictability as a result of some process in the brain. Here is were the discussions about free will are reduced today. Instead of that I want to stress the evidence of free will. According with the naked definition, it is evident that we have free will. It may be evident that we have it, but it's not evident what it is. As JC notes nobody seems to have a definition of it. To me, that implies we need to look for an operational definition - which is where absence of coercion and unpredictable come in. These are not very definite, since they admit of degrees, but they are in fact what social policy relies on. All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the other way around. The trouble is this fact just refers to a personal feeling and so is useless for social policy: Did you feel that you had free will when you shot your husband? Brent The negation of this is not only to twist the concepts and to reverse the order of science, that normally goes from evidence to theory, but it can also have grave social consequences. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at
Re: The canal effect
On 9/30/2013 1:14 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: I stopped short (but violated this rule many times ) from arguing against the fallacies included in the age-old 'religious' belief systems. The reason: one irate response took me to task: who gave me superiority over HIS (and other's) belief? He was hurt and I don't like to hurt people. Sometimes I cannot resist the urge to 'tell' my opinion, - human weakness. I mostly foul up when I see the fallacy reaching into reigious-based political powermongery. Like the FREE WILL. Or contrtaception, or...(etcG). Lately I turn less patient and become more irritated. Maybe my age? Best regards John M I thought you were gonna cut loose and let me have it with both barrels. But don't hold back - I might be as old as you are with not much time left to learn the truth. :-) Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: The canal effect
Hi Alberto Were there ever genuinely naked questions? ie. Was there really a time when ideas were not framed by the exciting possibilities offered by the contemporary technology? All the best --- Original Message --- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Sent: 29 September 2013 7:59 PM To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: The canal effect I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many others) saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the Panama Canal was being constructed, and this novelty captivated the imagination of the people. everithing had a solution with a canal. And everything could be solved and explained with mechanics and electricity, the technology that helped to construct the channel. Therefore the Martians was an electric civilization that launched electric discharges. It is necessary to explain what I want to mean?. People throw in novel technologies and theories whatever they have unexplained or unsolved, but also their hopes. But at the end of the day these solutions vomit back what was put in with still new questions. The net effect is the rephrasing of the ancient questions with a new language, passed trough the filter of the solution that dominates the uthopic mind of the people. That language, the one of the particular science that dominates the landscape assures that the ancient questions are reduced to match the particular aspect that can fit in the theory. I personally prefer the original, naked questions as the first ones that though about it, as they appeared in their mind, without the filter of any theory. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
Yes. That naive uthopianism is quite recent in history. And it is local to the western world, because it is a deformation of the chirstian concept of salvation. 2013/9/29 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com Hi Alberto Were there ever genuinely naked questions? ie. Was there really a time when ideas were not framed by the exciting possibilities offered by the contemporary technology? All the best --- Original Message --- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Sent: 29 September 2013 7:59 PM To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: The canal effect I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many others) saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the Panama Canal was being constructed, and this novelty captivated the imagination of the people. everithing had a solution with a canal. And everything could be solved and explained with mechanics and electricity, the technology that helped to construct the channel. Therefore the Martians was an electric civilization that launched electric discharges. It is necessary to explain what I want to mean?. People throw in novel technologies and theories whatever they have unexplained or unsolved, but also their hopes. But at the end of the day these solutions vomit back what was put in with still new questions. The net effect is the rephrasing of the ancient questions with a new language, passed trough the filter of the solution that dominates the uthopic mind of the people. That language, the one of the particular science that dominates the landscape assures that the ancient questions are reduced to match the particular aspect that can fit in the theory. I personally prefer the original, naked questions as the first ones that though about it, as they appeared in their mind, without the filter of any theory. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
On 9/29/2013 4:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Yes. That naive uthopianism is quite recent in history. And it is local to the western world, because it is a deformation of the chirstian concept of salvation. The Greeks thought they had declined from a golden age - long before heard of Christianity. 2013/9/29 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com Hi Alberto Were there ever genuinely naked questions? ie. Was there really a time when ideas were not framed by the exciting possibilities offered by the contemporary technology? And what would be the alternative. The only naked question is, WTF? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
The danger is to think that all questions are seen through a filter of culture and language, *therefore* we don't get any closer to the truth. This is the mistake that makes postmodernism (as a philosophy) useless, and is of course what science is designed to avoid, as much as is humanly possible, which is why it has had so many successes. Schiaparelli (sp?) saw channels on Mars (I believe he used the Italian canali= channels?) and this was distorted by popular perception into canals. About 20 years later The War of the Worlds came out, probably influenced by the idea that there was an ancient civilisation on Mars, which was dying and wanted a new home. This idea worked quite well as a hypothesis, I believe... * The nebular hypothesis said the solar system formed from a swirling cloud and the outer planets formed first, hence Mars would be somewhat older than Earth. * Timescales were considered in millions of years because the only conceivable source of power was gravitational contraction. Hence life was assumed to arise relatively fast and a million years' difference would put Mars well ahead. * Mars is further from the sun, colder, smaller than earth. If the sun was gradually cooling it would have had a golden age when Earth was a steaming jungle but now Mars was dying, losing water and air etc (this is all sort-of correct, I believe, over a vastly longer timescale and minus the octopoid Martians). * Life formed here, so why not there? Ditto for intelligent life. So why not vast, cool, superior intellects viewing us like microbes? It's a wonderful idea (repeated in The Tripods and of course on a smaller scale with the Daleks). * Given that Mars is civilised and dying, why not build canals to take water from the polar ice caps to the deserts? A vast civilisation would be able to do that, and would want to do so - and it would even be able to colonise Earth, ignoring the microbes who currently live there (except that turned out to be a bad decision, of course - a bug bear of Wells' perhaps? He thought we'd conquer disease eventually, as was clearly supposed to be the case in The Time Machine). The Victorian view of the universe is wonderfully cosy in many ways, and lends itself to *fin de siecle* SF - the entropic romance is a genre I am rather fond of. In the house of the worm by George RR Martin is a great modern example. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
2013/9/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 9/29/2013 4:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Yes. That naive uthopianism is quite recent in history. And it is local to the western world, because it is a deformation of the chirstian concept of salvation. The Greeks thought they had declined from a golden age - long before heard of Christianity. Although this is lateral to what I wanted to say,... the decline standpoint is just the opposite of the the heaven is coming of the uthopians. The latter is genuinelly western and postchristian (I would say puritan) 2013/9/29 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com Hi Alberto Were there ever genuinely naked questions? ie. Was there really a time when ideas were not framed by the exciting possibilities offered by the contemporary technology? And what would be the alternative. The only naked question is, WTF? WTF is a good question ;) Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The canal effect
On 30 September 2013 12:15, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Although this is lateral to what I wanted to say,... the decline standpoint is just the opposite of the the heaven is coming of the uthopians. The latter is genuinelly western and postchristian (I would say puritan) Yes, interesting idea. Heaven is a place on Earth, indeed? WTF is a good question ;) or... WTF is a good question? (in the same vein as Who is the greatest Doctor!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
