Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Now we have seven "wild guesses" that I've tried to boil down as
> follows:
>
> 1. Walter Fritz thinks that we can get a computer to produce these non
> physical effects and that it can all be reduced to objective physical
> objects and processes.
>
> 2. Don Mikulecky suggests we use Rosen's catagory theory that deals with
> objects and their models as relational.
*SIGH*......I corrected this some time ago...but the misrepresentation won't
die!
>
>
> 3. John Kineman proposes that existence and experience are one and that
> the becoming experience may be quantum related.
>
> 4. Norm McPhail submits that the qualities of non physical data somehow
> transpose into effecting physical differences.
>
> 5. Alexei Sharov considers it possible that physical existance is a
> condition or expression of meaning.
>
> 6. Sascha Ignjatovic postulates a Godhead/mathematics holistic system
> that may be analagous to infinity. He suggests that to understand the
> whole system, we ought to approach it from several perspectives.
>
> 7. Mario Vaneechoutte writes that the key to grasping the non physical
> may be to understand the nature of experience, but he feels that our
> brains may not be capable of doing this.
>
> There are now seven of us that are willing to take a "wild guess" about
> the nature of non physical phemomena. Since Don seems to be doing other
> things at the moment,
sorry...I stayed home for two days....I've been pushing too hard after my
knee replacement
> we can either continue with an open format or
> attempt to compare our views in some more systematic way.
>
> What I am suggesting is that we work together to write a single
> statement that reflects all our present views. The first step would be
> for each of us to make sure the above summary of our own views is
> reasonably close to the mark.
>
> Next, each of us could take a crack at combining the above views into an
> organized interelated set of statements. In other words, perhaps we
> could each try to set forth the similarities and differences of all our
> views. Thus we would each try to summarize our combined points of view.
>
> After we have written and sent out a few short paragraphs summarizing
> these points, the next step is to see if we can combine them into one
> summary statement that we all agree on. The advantages of focusing our
> attention on a single text is simply that we will be working together to
> achieve a common goal.
>
> In my experience, this is more likely to yield constructive results as
> opposed to aimlessly and endlessly debating back and forth. Once we
> have a joint statement that outlines the main issues we would like to
> focus on, perhaps we can proceed to work out a set of questions that
> would help us find some of the answers we are all looking for.
>
> To make this as simple as possible, unless we get a consensus of votes
> to proceed in some systematic fashion, we will just continue with the
> open newsgroup type exchanges.
>
> Norm McPhail