Yes, I've come to the conclusion that you're right. It seems to be an
automatic knee-jerk response. This is especially obvious when it comes to
matters of opinion--she does automatically assume that if you don't share her
opinion, you must be stupid. She says she grew up in an academic
Judy sighed when I sent a lovely passage from G. Spencer Brown whose book is
not called Laws of Form for nothing. I take it that she didn't get it my
point in quoting that passage, so I'll try to spell it out in concrete and
simple terms. We take as given the idea of distinction is the way
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:34 PM, new.morning wrote:
...by the bye, OMGAkashaNewMonitor, I seem to remember that you
recently claimed you found me boring
I did just get a new monitor. How did you know? That omniscience is
really kicking into high gear.
That's just a warm-up for Rory and Jim,
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either
trivial, not clear or no point at all!
--- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Peter wrote:
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either
trivial, not clear or no point at all!
Post of the week--I think you've just given a perfect description of
most of the discussions on FFL, Peter.
Sal
Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant.
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In
Then you should have.
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are
irrelevant.
Uh, that isn't what I pointed out to you,
I stopped when you took me to task for it. You were right to do so.
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you should have.
If you think credentials are irrelevant, why do
When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician) in response to the
Davies piece, Judy assumed I had not read the thing. My comment was that it is
absurd to posit something outside of the universe. So maybe a longer quote
from Spence Brown will make my point clearer. This work was
I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed
piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a
philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning
skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic
Jackpot: (subtitle here).
--- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One reader review quotes the last paragraph of the
book:
Perhaps we have reached a fundamental
impasse dictated
by the limitations of the [waking state]human
intellect.
There we go!
After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his
interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece.
Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather
banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of
science course. To me he appears to be reifying the
laws of physics. That is he's
It is for the sake of the mystery that Meister Eckhart said, I pray to God
that he may quit me of God.
curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the difference, other than that the religionists
label the question mark God and the scientists don't
label
I don't understand what he means by an external agency. Where is there an
agency external to the universe?
I'd bet more than a buck that the answer involves consciousness.
curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
That's the problem then. The universe either includes all, or it ain't the
universe. G. Spencer Brown puts it well in his Laws of Form:
It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or
why the world conceives a desire, and discovers an ability, to see
itself, and appears
15 matches
Mail list logo
