On 11/12/2008, at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain
>>> why
>>> I think that: IF we assume that we are machine,
>>
>>
>> Never understood what people meant by "a mach
Hi Kim,
On 10 Dec 2008, at 06:29, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Ok - Bruno, I will take this very slowly.
It is the idea. I will be very slow myself.
> You have a habit of saying
> 10,000 fascinating things in one post and staggering me, so one at a
> time:
I did it on purpose, so as to give you
Kim (and Bruno, if you allow me to intrude):
Bruno's "IF" depends IMO on how one is defining "machine". Evidently NOT a
mechanical contraption driven by 'energy'(?) input and built-in controls
that are operated by a 'machinist' of higher consciousness. Then again
Descartes? I would call his point
Ok - Bruno, I will take this very slowly. You have a habit of saying
10,000 fascinating things in one post and staggering me, so one at a
time:
On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain why
> I think that: IF we ass
4 matches
Mail list logo
