Re: Pink Floyd member Richard Wright dies at age 65
The Starmaker
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_en_mu/eu_britain_pink_floyd
>
> Pink Floyd member Richard Wright dies at age 65
>
> A Pink Floyd spokesman says founding member Richard Wright has died.
> He was 65.
>
> Wright died Monday after a battle with cancer at his home in Britain.
> His family did not want to give more details about his death. The
> spokesman is Doug Wright, who is not related to the artist.
>
> Richard Wright met Pink Floyd members Roger Waters and Nick Mason at
> college and joined their early band Sigma 6.
>
> Sigma 6 eventually became Pink Floyd and Wright wrote and sang some of
> the band's key songs. He wrote "The Great Gig In The Sky" and "Us And
> Them" from Pink Floyd's 1973 "The Dark Side Of The Moon."
>
> He left the group in the early 1980s to form his own band but rejoined
> Pink Floyd for their 1987 album "A Momentary Lapse of Reason."
He went to that Great Gig in the Sky!
http://www.youtube.com/v/okr-hH-WIsI
Probably smoking a joint with God right now....
Steve Worek
reasons that Roger fired him in 1981. (Roger, Nick and Dave were never big
drug users.)
"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:48CEEB...@ix.netcom.com...
The Nice Mean Man
> No... unfortunately, Rick's drug of choice was cocaine. That's one of the
> reasons that Roger fired him in 1981. (Roger, Nick and Dave were never big
> drug users.)
>
>
> news:48CEEB...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
>
> > edonline wrote:
>
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_en_mu/eu_britain_pink_floyd
>
> >> Pink Floyd member Richard Wright dies at age 65
>
> >> A Pink Floyd spokesman says founding member Richard Wright has died.
> >> He was 65.
>
> >> Wright died Monday after a battle with cancer at his home in Britain.
> >> His family did not want to give more details about his death. The
> >> spokesman is Doug Wright, who is not related to the artist.
>
> >> Richard Wright met Pink Floyd members Roger Waters and Nick Mason at
> >> college and joined their early band Sigma 6.
>
> >> Sigma 6 eventually became Pink Floyd and Wright wrote and sang some of
> >> the band's key songs. He wrote "The Great Gig In The Sky" and "Us And
> >> Them" from Pink Floyd's 1973 "The Dark Side Of The Moon."
>
> >> He left the group in the early 1980s to form his own band but rejoined
> >> Pink Floyd for their 1987 album "A Momentary Lapse of Reason."
>
> > He went to that Great Gig in the Sky!
> >http://www.youtube.com/v/okr-hH-WIsI
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
He died of CANCER, dude. And I don't know of a strain of flake
anywhere that will end up doing that.
The Nice Mean Man
AndoDoug
> No... unfortunately, Rick's drug of choice was cocaine. That's one of the
> reasons that Roger fired him in 1981. (Roger, Nick and Dave were never big
> drug users.)
while i think the image of mr. wright smoking a joint with God right
now is a bit silly, it at least makes you smile and remember the man's
excellent, windswept voice. The crack about his drug use is
unrespectful of the just-past. someday you're going to be flying
around bodiless, just lost your body a day or so ago, and like,
totally freaked out and hearing every fucking sound in the universe,
and people are going to be blabbing publicly about your private
habits.
The Starmaker
AndoDoug
> Does God do coke?
Are you kidding? Does Cod do goke?
Babs
>
> Probably smoking a joint with God right now....
"Comfortably Numb" is one of my favorite Pink Floyd songs, and right
now I'm feeling anything but.
daysof48
The Hysterical Bride
>
> - Show quoted text -
Omg! You just beat me to it. I just came back to this page ready to
post the lyrics.
The Hysterical Bride
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Omg! You just beat me to it. I just came back to this page ready to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, just in case anybody still wants to read them...
Hello.
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?
Come on, now.
I hear youre feeling down.
Well I can ease your pain,
Get you on your feet again.
Relax.
I need some information first.
Just the basic facts:
Can you show me where it hurts?
There is no pain, you are receding.
A distant ships smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I cant hear what youre sayin.
When I was a child I had a fever.
My hands felt just like two balloons.
Now I got that feeling once again.
I cant explain, you would not understand.
This is not how I am.
I have become comfortably numb.
Ok.
Just a little pinprick. [ping]
Therell be no more --aaaaaahhhhh!
But you may feel a little sick.
Can you stand up?
I do believe its working. good.
Thatll keep you going for the show.
Come on its time to go.
There is no pain, you are receding.
A distant ships smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I cant hear what youre sayin.
When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now.
The child is grown, the dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.
P.S. Was watching, am still listening to the video. A little emotional
reaction, some tears, remembering feeling lost, my lost youth, etc..
(stoned)
AndoDoug
>
> P.S. Was watching, am still listening to the video. A little emotional
> reaction, some tears, remembering feeling lost, my lost youth, etc..
> (stoned)
hi rachel
The Hysterical Bride
just to clarify, i was stoned then, not now.
The Starmaker
you mean, not this minute..
Gemini Jackson
wrote:
>"Comfortably Numb" is one of my favorite Pink Floyd songs, and right
>now I'm feeling anything but.
I'm an Echoes and pre-Dark Side man myself. His ambiance was missed
greatly between The Wall and DB. Ever seen the Pompeii video? To me,
THAT'S The Pink Floyd at their creative high.
At least we had the Live 8 thing.
-GJ
Richard Heathfield
> "Steve Worek" <wa3...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:gVEzk.175$UB3.31@trnddc07:
>
>> No... unfortunately, Rick's drug of choice was cocaine. That's one of
>> the reasons that Roger fired him in 1981. (Roger, Nick and Dave were
>> never big drug users.)
>
> How could they produce such amazing psychedelic music without drugs?
That question is upside down. It takes a great deal of talent to produce
amazing psychedelic music, and drugs destroy talent.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Gill Smith
news:OvKdnbuAJsseKVLV...@bt.com...
> Doghouse Reilly said:
>
>> "Steve Worek" <wa3...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:gVEzk.175$UB3.31@trnddc07:
>>
>>> No... unfortunately, Rick's drug of choice was cocaine. That's one of
>>> the reasons that Roger fired him in 1981. (Roger, Nick and Dave were
>>> never big drug users.)
>>
>> How could they produce such amazing psychedelic music without drugs?
>
> That question is upside down. It takes a great deal of talent to produce
> amazing psychedelic music, and drugs destroy talent.
Agreed. Making GOOD music is hard, boring WORK.
Drugs are there to make you feel comfortably numb as you hope you coast
on some sort of creative auto-pilot.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
New single
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
firefly
"Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:OvKdnbuAJsseKVLV...@bt.com...
>
>> "Steve Worek" <wa3...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:gVEzk.175$UB3.31@trnddc07:
>>
>>> No... unfortunately, Rick's drug of choice was cocaine. That's one of
>>> the reasons that Roger fired him in 1981. (Roger, Nick and Dave were
>>> never big drug users.)
>>
>> How could they produce such amazing psychedelic music without drugs?
>
> That question is upside down. It takes a great deal of talent to produce
> amazing psychedelic music, and drugs destroy talent.
>
He got to saying his phenomenal and heyday perfect and unprecedented Beatle
music was embarrassing.
Lennon was outside the galaxy and thought his wonderful home was a stupid
speck.
---firefly
firefly
---firefly
"The Hysterical Bride" <rach...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:66b017ef-a632-4bd0...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
The Starmaker
>
> Lyrics without music are stupid, flat and short-sighted.
>
> ---firefly
Music came first before lyrics.
The cavemen sang before they talked.
Richard Heathfield
>
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> news:OvKdnbuAJsseKVLV...@bt.com...
>> Doghouse Reilly said:
>>>
>>> How could [Pink Floyd] produce such amazing psychedelic music
>>> without drugs?
>>
>> That question is upside down. It takes a great deal of talent to produce
>> amazing psychedelic music, and drugs destroy talent.
>>
> That's right. Look at John Lennon.
Case in point. Think how much better the 1970s Beatles material could have
been without drugs getting in the way.
The Starmaker
>
> firefly said:
>
> >
> > "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:OvKdnbuAJsseKVLV...@bt.com...
> >> Doghouse Reilly said:
> >>>
> >>> How could [Pink Floyd] produce such amazing psychedelic music
> >>> without drugs?
> >>
> >> That question is upside down. It takes a great deal of talent to produce
> >> amazing psychedelic music, and drugs destroy talent.
> >>
> > That's right. Look at John Lennon.
>
> Case in point. Think how much better the 1970s Beatles material could have
> been without drugs getting in the way.
>
How do you make "Hey Jude", better?
The Starmaker
Producing psychedelic music or even psychedelic posters is not possible without drugs.
Otherwise, without drugs you get
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aMHdVruMZE&feature=related
thatwou...@gmail.com
Simple. You just take it as a sad song, and make it better.
Janice
> . . .
> Producing psychedelic music or even psychedelic posters is not possible without drugs.
> Otherwise, without drugs you get
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aMHdVruMZE&feature=related-
But then how do you account for this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56g2gNdWxxw&feature=related
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jumbo
Um... there's a logical problem here.
Jumbo
Record it in the 60s?
Kyla =^..^=
"Babs"...
On Sep 15, 7:12 pm, The Starmaker :
If you'd like, you can light a virtual Candle for Rick at this site, which
I put up.
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=RickW
>
> RickW is the 'group' where you can find it
Love and peace
Kyla
The Starmaker
I never like that song "Comfortably Numb". I didn't think it was possible for
anyone else to like it. It sounds soooo borrring.....
seastew
>
> - Show quoted text -
I watched The Wall as soon as I found out, in his honor. Another great
talent gone. Haven't gotten stoned in 20+ years, wouldn't know where
to find any, but would love to smoke one, put on Dark Side (vinyl with
headphones), and veg out.
The Starmaker
I meant, they hummed a lot, made musical sounds before they talked.
Especially if they didn't know the words to the song...
It is much easier to add words to music than add music to words..
Caveman did a lot of singing before they knew the lyrics...
Somebody here was trying to figure out a song but didn't know the words:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
What is that song?
Date:
Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:19:43 -0500
From:
cuh...@webtv.net
Organization:
WebTV Subscriber
Newsgroups:
alt.gossip.celebrities
I can't remember so much as one single word of it.I have listened to it
before, back in the 1960s, I think 1960s.Trying to hum it, it is
something like this,,,,,
ahhhhh daaa da dappa,,,,,,,
It is a slow song.
cuhulin
-------------------------------------------------------
That has to be cavemen music! ahhhhh daaa da dappa,,,,,,,???
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
>
> Somebody here was trying to figure out a song but didn't know the words:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject:
> What is that song?
> Date:
> Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:19:43 -0500
> From:
> cuh...@webtv.net
> Organization:
> WebTV Subscriber
> Newsgroups:
> alt.gossip.celebrities
>
>
> I can't remember so much as one single word of it.I have listened to it
> before, back in the 1960s, I think 1960s.Trying to hum it, it is
> something like this,,,,,
> ahhhhh daaa da dappa,,,,,,,
>
> It is a slow song.
> cuhulin
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> That has to be cavemen music! ahhhhh daaa da dappa,,,,,,,???
And there was me, thinking it was Frank Sinatra.
Oh, but wait...
Janice
> . .
> I watched The Wall as soon as I found out, in his honor. Another great
> talent gone. Haven't gotten stoned in 20+ years, wouldn't know where
> to find any, but would love to smoke one, put on Dark Side (vinyl with
> headphones), and veg out.
I remember where I was the first time I heard Dark Side, also on vinyl
with headphones, lights dimmed . . . it's a full moon tonight. Pass
that over here, would ya?
I have this theory, that when one of the really good ones passes over,
they release all this essentially gifted energy that they have
nurtured and cultivated all during their earth gig... and then this
essence flows out into the world and reinvents itself in the lives of
hundreds or thousands or millions of others. I'm pretty sure this is
true, because a week after Abbie Hoffman died, thousands of young
people were standing up in protest against the guns of the Chinese
regime in Tiananmen Square -- I figured it was just Abbie pouring out
all over the world.
Wonder what Richard Wright will release on his way. . .
Hmmm. Good stuff. Thanks :)
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jumbo
> Jumbo wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 5:11 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > firefly wrote:
>
> > > > Lyrics without music are stupid, flat and short-sighted.
>
> > > > ---firefly
>
> > > Music came first before lyrics.
>
> > > The cavemen sang before they talked.
>
> > Um... there's a logical problem here.
>
> I meant, they hummed a lot, made musical sounds before they talked.
> Especially if they didn't know the words to the song...
>
> It is much easier to add words to music than add music to words..
>
> Caveman did a lot of singing before they knew the lyrics...
I don't know about cavemen. But have you read Vico? He argues that
before language was spoken, it was sung.
Alain Naigeon
Xns9B1C5B0E890A9lk...@207.115.33.102...
> Janice <jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote in
> news:ba26da26-bb03-4193...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sep 16, 10:26 pm, seastew <seattles...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I watched The Wall as soon as I found out, in his honor. Another
>>> great talent gone. Haven't gotten stoned in 20+ years, wouldn't know
>>> where to find any, but would love to smoke one, put on Dark Side
>>> (vinyl with headphones), and veg out.
>>
>> I remember where I was the first time I heard Dark Side, also on vinyl
>> with headphones, lights dimmed . . . it's a full moon tonight. Pass
>> that over here, would ya?
>>
>> I have this theory, that when one of the really good ones passes over,
>> they release all this essentially gifted energy that they have
>> nurtured and cultivated all during their earth gig... and then this
>> essence flows out into the world and reinvents itself in the lives of
>> hundreds or thousands or millions of others.
>
> You need to read up on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.
But the existence of life - which builds organization from chaos - has
been told to violate this principle, though.
A complex question, for sure!
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
ohioln
> On Sep 15, 10:32 pm, "Steve Worek" <wa3d...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > No... unfortunately, Rick's drug of choice was cocaine. That's one of the
> > reasons that Roger fired him in 1981. (Roger, Nick and Dave were never big
> > drug users.)
>
>
> >news:48CEEB...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> > > edonline wrote:
>
> > >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_en_mu/eu_britain_pink_floyd
>
> > >> Pink Floyd member Richard Wright dies at age 65
>
> > >> A Pink Floyd spokesman says founding member Richard Wright has died.
> > >> He was 65.
>
> > >> Wright died Monday after a battle with cancer at his home in Britain.
> > >> His family did not want to give more details about his death. The
> > >> spokesman is Doug Wright, who is not related to the artist.
>
> > >> Richard Wright met Pink Floyd members Roger Waters and Nick Mason at
> > >> college and joined their early band Sigma 6.
>
> > >> Sigma 6 eventually became Pink Floyd and Wright wrote and sang some of
> > >> the band's key songs. He wrote "The Great Gig In The Sky" and "Us And
> > >> Them" from Pink Floyd's 1973 "The Dark Side Of The Moon."
>
> > >> He left the group in the early 1980s to form his own band but rejoined
> > >> Pink Floyd for their 1987 album "A Momentary Lapse of Reason."
>
> > > He went to that Great Gig in the Sky!
> > >http://www.youtube.com/v/okr-hH-WIsI
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> anywhere that will end up doing that.
>
> The Nice Mean Man- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is sad, cancer is a nasty disease. My condolences to all of his
family, friends and fans.
seastew
That is beautiful- I love the idea of positive energy being released.
Thanks for that post!
The Starmaker
high school! ask any kid!!
jr. high sckool, ask any kid!!
any black neighborhood...
any spanish neighboorhood..
any grandmother..
any chick, they *always* get it for free.
The girls I know
everytime they take smoke
out of there purse
I ask them
"Where did you buy that at?"
And they all always respond with
"A *friend* gave it to me!"
Women always pretend they don't have money...
The Starmaker
>
> Janice <jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote in
> news:ba26da26-bb03-4193...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> >> I watched The Wall as soon as I found out, in his honor. Another
> >> great talent gone. Haven't gotten stoned in 20+ years, wouldn't know
> >> where to find any, but would love to smoke one, put on Dark Side
> >> (vinyl with headphones), and veg out.
> >
> > I remember where I was the first time I heard Dark Side, also on vinyl
> > with headphones, lights dimmed . . . it's a full moon tonight. Pass
> > that over here, would ya?
> >
> > I have this theory, that when one of the really good ones passes over,
> > they release all this essentially gifted energy that they have
> > nurtured and cultivated all during their earth gig... and then this
> > essence flows out into the world and reinvents itself in the lives of
> > hundreds or thousands or millions of others.
>
Is that a Timothy Leary book?
The Starmaker
>
> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> a écrit dans le message de news:
> Xns9B1C5B0E890A9lk...@207.115.33.102...
>
> > Janice <jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote in
> > news:ba26da26-bb03-4193...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On Sep 16, 10:26 pm, seastew <seattles...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I watched The Wall as soon as I found out, in his honor. Another
> >>> great talent gone. Haven't gotten stoned in 20+ years, wouldn't know
> >>> where to find any, but would love to smoke one, put on Dark Side
> >>> (vinyl with headphones), and veg out.
> >>
> >> I remember where I was the first time I heard Dark Side, also on vinyl
> >> with headphones, lights dimmed . . . it's a full moon tonight. Pass
> >> that over here, would ya?
> >>
> >> I have this theory, that when one of the really good ones passes over,
> >> they release all this essentially gifted energy that they have
> >> nurtured and cultivated all during their earth gig... and then this
> >> essence flows out into the world and reinvents itself in the lives of
> >> hundreds or thousands or millions of others.
> >
> > You need to read up on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.
>
> But the existence of life - which builds organization from chaos - has
> been told to violate this principle, though.
> A complex question, for sure!
Columbian Red is what you're talking about...
The Starmaker
Every time Richard Wright exhaled, everyone breathe his air...so his energy
flows through everyone. I saw Madonna the other day and I was breathing real
hard around her...I hope she doesn't get the wrong idea. I just wanted some Madonna.
The Starmaker
>
> seastew <seatt...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:af3cbe8a-d291-48c9...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sep 16, 4:57 pm, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 16, 8:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>
> >> > > firefly said:
> >>
> >> > > > "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> >> > > >news:OvKdnbuAJsseKVLV...@bt.com...
> >> > > >> Doghouse Reilly said:
> >>
> >> > > >>> How could [Pink Floyd] produce such amazing psychedelic music
> >> > > >>> without drugs?
> >>
> >> > > >> That question is upside down. It takes a great deal of talent
> >> > > >> to produce
> >> > > >> amazing psychedelic music, and drugs destroy talent.
> >>
> >> > > > That's right. Look at John Lennon.
> >>
> >> > > Case in point. Think how much better the 1970s Beatles material
> >> > > could have been without drugs getting in the way.
> >>
> >> > How do you make "Hey Jude", better?
> >>
> >> Record it in the 60s?
> >
> > talent gone. Haven't gotten stoned in 20+ years, wouldn't know where
> > to find any, but would love to smoke one, put on Dark Side (vinyl with
> > headphones), and veg out.
>
> :P
You have to be careful..there are kids out there..you should at
least tell them "Stoned On What", so they won't take the wrong drug
when they are listening to that album.
bermuda999
I have this theory, that when one of the really good ones passes
over,
> they release all this essentially gifted energy that they have
> nurtured and cultivated all during their earth gig... and then this
> essence flows out into the world and reinvents itself in the lives of
> hundreds or thousands or millions of others. �I'm pretty sure this is
> true, because a week after Abbie Hoffman died, thousands of young
> people were standing up in protest against the guns of the Chinese
> regime in Tiananmen Square -- I figured it was just Abbie pouring out
> all over the world.
And then they each overdosed on 150 Phenobarbital tablets?
>
> Wonder what Richard Wright will release on his way. . .
I'm thinking some fairly foul bodily gas
The Starmaker
No, I haven't read Vico...
but those 3 girls are doing a lot of singing without words
http://www.youtube.com/v/okr-hH-WIsI
Janice
> . . .
> I don't know about cavemen. But have you read Vico? He argues that
> before language was spoken, it was sung.
I have been looking for an English translation of Vico's New Science
(preferrably for download, but hardcopy is fine too) -- can you
recommend one?
His theory of history fascinates me, particularly since he predicted
the process of democracy way back in the early 1700's -- so well, in
fact, that I'm very afraid he was talking about us, here and now:
(From a review of Vico) -- "So, at the very moment when men appeared
capable of setting up the
perfectly organised society, one based upon reason and not
imagination,
man’s vices would reassert themselves and begin to undermine his
socially
conditioned behaviour. This would reveal itself first of all in
demands for
increasingly democratic social, economic and political conditions and
institutions, then in a demand for increasingly permissive forms of
social
behaviour and morality until finally the very notion of morality, of
right and
wrong, would disappear. Then there would be nothing left to force
people to
regulate their conduct and inhibit their anti-social desires. Sooner
or later
there would be some sort of enormous civil war and all man’s social
and
cultural achievements would be destroyed. Man would be reduced to his
initial state of bestiality from which he could only be rescued by a
recurrence
of the whole historical cycle."
The internets?
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jumbo
> On Sep 17, 5:13 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
> > . . .
> > I don't know about cavemen. But have you read Vico? He argues that
> > before language was spoken, it was sung.
>
> I have been looking for an English translation of Vico's New Science
> (preferrably for download, but hardcopy is fine too) -- can you
> recommend one?
I only know the Penguin one, which I've got. It's heavy going. First
time, I got about 120 pages in, loved it, but needed a rest. Came back
a few years later and finished it off. Very stimulating.
Bluuuue Rajah
news:48d103ff$0$12436$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr:
> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> a écrit dans le message de news:
> Xns9B1C5B0E890A9lk...@207.115.33.102...
>
>
>> Janice <jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote in
>> news:ba26da26-bb03-4193-a779-
6c9178...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 10:26 pm, seastew <seattles...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I watched The Wall as soon as I found out, in his honor. Another
>>>> great talent gone. Haven't gotten stoned in 20+ years, wouldn't
>>>> know where to find any, but would love to smoke one, put on Dark
>>>> Side (vinyl with headphones), and veg out.
>>>
>>> I remember where I was the first time I heard Dark Side, also on
>>> vinyl with headphones, lights dimmed . . . it's a full moon tonight.
>>> Pass that over here, would ya?
>>>
>>> I have this theory, that when one of the really good ones passes
>>> over, they release all this essentially gifted energy that they have
>>> nurtured and cultivated all during their earth gig... and then this
>>> essence flows out into the world and reinvents itself in the lives
>>> of hundreds or thousands or millions of others.
>>
>> You need to read up on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.
>
> But the existence of life - which builds organization from chaos - has
> been told to violate this principle, though.
> A complex question, for sure!
That's a common misconception. The entropy increase of the star that
powers the evolution of life is greater than the decrease in entropy of
the appearance and growth of life on earth. Taken as a pair, the total
entropy of the entire system still increases. The 2nd Law is written in
stone, and cannot be violated under any circumstances.
The Starmaker
Well cetaintly the Internet has came to the rescue...for music.
I've discoverd on Youtube styles of music I would have never
have seen coming from the 'music industry monopoly'...
like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCAeq5kE0Ko
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3EtLCjaYMw&feature=PlayList&p=8F8CC241C08F8753&index=4
and others....
Now, with the Internet...anyone with talent or the desire to sing to others
can generate their own, audience...that can last the singers lifetime.
You just have to develop first
your own audience
for your music...
then
when the audience gets big enough...
you just
charge them, if you like,
to see you perform
on your website.
For example...
I would like to ask one of those girls above,
"Can you sing this song?"
I give them the title of the song...
pay through their payment section and
she'll email me when the song
is up on her website!
And if I want her to sing another song...
and another....
and another...
But I notice
singers haven't figured out how to
make that transistion from Youtube
to their webtube.
It's all about having a
personal relationship with
your audience.
They have to be able to communicate
with you, not just you communicate
with them through your singing.
The above girls I think do a
good job, but seem to lack that
transition...where the audience
makes requests.
Like putting a nickle in the Jukebox.
For example:
I should be able to go those girls
own website above and should look
something like this:
http://levi.com/estelle/
Where I'll click a song
and she'll sing it
, or she takes requests.
But I guess I'll have to
wait until singers figure it out.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
I mean, if you type: Sing
these girls will sing
http://www.beer.com/virtualbartender2/
Alain Naigeon
You're right, the condition for the principe to hold is : you have to
consider
the whole system which doesn't exchange with any other external system.
Gill Smith
news:db7c514d-6547-4ba7...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> How could they produce such amazing psychedelic music without drugs?
>>
>> > That question is upside down. It takes a great deal of talent to
>> > produce
>> > amazing psychedelic music, and drugs destroy talent.
>>
>>
>> Drugs are there to make you feel comfortably numb as you hope you coast
>> on some sort of creative auto-pilot.
>
> Depends what kind of drugs you're talking about. Alcohol and Opiates,
> agreed. Hallucinogens generally have the opposite effect, opening up
> or stripping away filters and letting in more sensory data.
Beethoven was a keen drinker.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Bluuuue Rajah
That means you'll have to retract your previous comment about the
violation of that principle.
Alain Naigeon
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns9B1D9C552A5C4lk...@207.115.17.102...
> "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in
> news:48d25361$0$12438$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr:
>>>> But the existence of life - which builds organization from chaos -
>>>> has been told to violate this principle, though.
>>>> A complex question, for sure!
>>>
>>> That's a common misconception. The entropy increase of the star that
>>> powers the evolution of life is greater than the decrease in entropy
>>> of the appearance and growth of life on earth. Taken as a pair, the
>>> total entropy of the entire system still increases. The 2nd Law is
>>> written in stone, and cannot be violated under any circumstances.
>>
>> You're right, the condition for the principe to hold is : you have to
>> consider the whole system which doesn't exchange with any other
>> external system.
>
> That means you'll have to retract your previous comment about the
> violation of that principle.
Only if we can find which interaction, with which external system,
explains the beginning of life.
As for "retracting"... had you been exchanging with Giordano Bruno
some centuries ago ? :-o
The Starmaker
>
> > "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> a Ｄrit dans le message de news:
> > Xns9B1D9C552A5C4lk...@207.115.17.102...
> >> "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in
> >> news:48d25361$0$12438$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr:
> >>>>> But the existence of life - which builds organization from chaos -
> >>>>> has been told to violate this principle, though.
> >>>>> A complex question, for sure!
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a common misconception. The entropy increase of the star
> >>>> that powers the evolution of life is greater than the decrease in
> >>>> entropy of the appearance and growth of life on earth. Taken as a
> >>>> pair, the total entropy of the entire system still increases. The
> >>>> 2nd Law is written in stone, and cannot be violated under any
> >>>> circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> You're right, the condition for the principe to hold is : you have
> >>> to consider the whole system which doesn't exchange with any other
> >>> external system.
> >>
> >> That means you'll have to retract your previous comment about the
> >> violation of that principle.
> >
> > Only if we can find which interaction, with which external system,
> > explains the beginning of life.
>
> that it wasn't spontaneous. The absence of information about the
> sequence of chemical reactions that created life doesn't negate the
> second law. The second law is written in stone, and there are no
> exceptions, under any circumstances, ever.
The first law is, there is no law.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> You're assuming an external system, when there's no reason to believe
> that it wasn't spontaneous. The absence of information about the
> sequence of chemical reactions that created life doesn't negate the
> second law [of thermodynamics]. The second law is written in stone,
> and there are no exceptions, under any circumstances, ever.
That isn't how science works. It has been noted many times in the past that
theories destroy facts, and this is certainly true in the sense that the
establishment of a theory that adequately explains a large number of
observations and has predictive power over future observations largely
removes the need for those observations. But it is *also* true that facts
destroy theories. A theory which lacks predictive power is on uncertain
ground, so verifiable or reproducible observations that contradict a
theory call that theory into question, and could result in scientists
drawing the conclusion that the theory is false, or at least inadequate.
There are no unbreakable "laws" in science.
If you have a theory that depends on the second law of thermodynamics being
wrong, good luck persuading any reputable scientist - it ain't going to
happen. But if you have an OBSERVATION that SHOWS the second law of
thermodynamics to be wrong, and if you can present it in a way that forces
scientists to deal with it honestly and diligently (which in itself would
be quite a trick, given the scepticism your observation will engender),
then it is the second law of thermodynamics that is in trouble.
Note that I am certainly NOT claiming to have made or witnessed such an
observation! I'm just pointing out that the scientific method simply does
not allow unbreakable laws.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Bluuuue Rajah
> Bluuuue Rajah said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You're assuming an external system, when there's no reason to believe
>> that it wasn't spontaneous. The absence of information about the
>> sequence of chemical reactions that created life doesn't negate the
>> second law [of thermodynamics]. The second law is written in stone,
>> and there are no exceptions, under any circumstances, ever.
>
> That isn't how science works.
That *is* how science works.
> It has been noted many times in the past
> that theories destroy facts, and this is certainly true in the sense
> that the establishment of a theory that adequately explains a large
> number of observations and has predictive power over future
> observations largely removes the need for those observations. But it
> is *also* true that facts destroy theories. A theory which lacks
> predictive power is on uncertain ground, so verifiable or reproducible
> observations that contradict a theory call that theory into question,
> and could result in scientists drawing the conclusion that the theory
> is false, or at least inadequate.
>
> There are no unbreakable "laws" in science.
There are plenty of unbreakable laws in science.
> If you have a theory that depends on the second law of thermodynamics
> being wrong, good luck persuading any reputable scientist - it ain't
> going to happen. But if you have an OBSERVATION that SHOWS the second
> law of thermodynamics to be wrong, and if you can present it in a way
> that forces scientists to deal with it honestly and diligently (which
> in itself would be quite a trick, given the scepticism your
> observation will engender), then it is the second law of
> thermodynamics that is in trouble.
And you have no such observation.
> Note that I am certainly NOT claiming to have made or witnessed such
> an observation! I'm just pointing out that the scientific method
> simply does not allow unbreakable laws.
And therefore the human soul can't die, in violation of the second law.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in
> news:acmdnUxcHa_...@bt.com:
>
>> Bluuuue Rajah said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You're assuming an external system, when there's no reason to believe
>>> that it wasn't spontaneous. The absence of information about the
>>> sequence of chemical reactions that created life doesn't negate the
>>> second law [of thermodynamics]. The second law is written in stone,
>>> and there are no exceptions, under any circumstances, ever.
>>
>> That isn't how science works.
>
> That *is* how science works.
No, it isn't. Lots of scientific theories have been canned, or at least
relegated in importance, because observational evidence demonstrated that
they were incorrect. Newton's theory of gravitation is one obvious
example.
It is, however, true that it /was/ how "science" worked, a long time ago.
Plenty of observations and hypotheses were ridiculed and rejected because
they didn't agree with Aristotle.
Scientists have learned better.
>> It has been noted many times in the past
>> that theories destroy facts, and this is certainly true in the sense
>> that the establishment of a theory that adequately explains a large
>> number of observations and has predictive power over future
>> observations largely removes the need for those observations. But it
>> is *also* true that facts destroy theories. A theory which lacks
>> predictive power is on uncertain ground, so verifiable or reproducible
>> observations that contradict a theory call that theory into question,
>> and could result in scientists drawing the conclusion that the theory
>> is false, or at least inadequate.
>>
>> There are no unbreakable "laws" in science.
>
> There are plenty of unbreakable laws in science.
No, not a single one. Sorry, but there it is.
>> If you have a theory that depends on the second law of thermodynamics
>> being wrong, good luck persuading any reputable scientist - it ain't
>> going to happen. But if you have an OBSERVATION that SHOWS the second
>> law of thermodynamics to be wrong, and if you can present it in a way
>> that forces scientists to deal with it honestly and diligently (which
>> in itself would be quite a trick, given the scepticism your
>> observation will engender), then it is the second law of
>> thermodynamics that is in trouble.
>
> And you have no such observation.
Of course I don't. So what? That has no bearing on the argument at all. I'm
not saying that LT2 is *wrong*. I'm saying that it is not impossible that
it might be shown to be wrong in the future.
>> Note that I am certainly NOT claiming to have made or witnessed such
>> an observation! I'm just pointing out that the scientific method
>> simply does not allow unbreakable laws.
>
> And therefore the human soul can't die, in violation of the second law.
I see no connection between my statement and your "therefore" answer to it.
Janice
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote innews:acmdnUxcHa_...@bt.com:
Talk that talk :)
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Starmaker
Human soul? When did they ever shown proof that a "human soul" even actually exist?
Richard Heathfield
> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> And therefore the human soul can't die, in violation of the second law.
>
>
> Human soul? When did they ever shown proof that a "human soul" even
> actually exist?
Louis Armstrong. QED.
Bluuuue Rajah
news:8d8a8561-24c5-443a...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 19, 9:36 am, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote
>> innews:acmdnUxcHa_yzE7VRV
> ny...@bt.com:
ok.
Janice
> . . .
> If you have a theory that depends on the second law of thermodynamics being
> wrong, good luck persuading any reputable scientist - it ain't going to
> happen. But if you have an OBSERVATION that SHOWS the second law of
> thermodynamics to be wrong, and if you can present it in a way that forces
> scientists to deal with it honestly and diligently (which in itself would
> be quite a trick, given the scepticism your observation will engender),
> then it is the second law of thermodynamics that is in trouble.
Evolution is observable -- from bacteria to humans, it is increasingly
complex and of a higher order. It is an observable contradiction of
entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.
> > Human soul? When did they ever shown proof that a "human soul" even
> > actually exist?
> Louis Armstrong. QED.
Wonderful :)
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: On Sep 19, 3:19=A0am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
: > . . .
: > If you have a theory that depends on the second law of thermodynamics bei=
: ng
: > wrong, good luck persuading any reputable scientist - it ain't going to
: > happen. But if you have an OBSERVATION that SHOWS the second law of
: > thermodynamics to be wrong, and if you can present it in a way that force=
: s
: > scientists to deal with it honestly and diligently (which in itself would
: > be quite a trick, given the scepticism your observation will engender),
: > then it is the second law of thermodynamics that is in trouble.
: Evolution is observable -- from bacteria to humans, it is increasingly
: complex and of a higher order. It is an observable contradiction of
: entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.
Without the energy from the sun all life would cease and quickly become
less complex. It is easy to see that the entropy of the sun must be
included in any calculation about the total entropy of the system in which
life exists. When the entropy of the sun is included then there is no
contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.
Sean Carroll
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> If you have a theory that depends on the second law of thermodynamics
>> being
>> wrong, good luck persuading any reputable scientist - it ain't going to
>> happen. But if you have an OBSERVATION that SHOWS the second law of
>> thermodynamics to be wrong, and if you can present it in a way that
>> forces
>> scientists to deal with it honestly and diligently (which in itself would
>> be quite a trick, given the scepticism your observation will engender),
>> then it is the second law of thermodynamics that is in trouble.
Evolution is observable -- from bacteria to humans, it is increasingly
complex and of a higher order. It is an observable contradiction of
entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.
Good example! -- except that it in absolutely no way *is* a contradiction of
the law, which is only applicable to *thermodynamically closed* systems, of
which evolving, living organisms are NOT an example. (See the works of Ilya
Prigogine on 'dissipative structures', for example, for an explanation of
how living systems create order *without* violating the 2nd law.)
Also, the idea that evolution 'is increasingly complex and of higher order'
is extremely questionable, and you will find vehement disagreement among
scientists on whether it is at all true. Part of the problem is that no one
has any clear, unarguable definition of what 'increasing complexity' or
'higher order' would even *mean* in evolutionary terms. You seem to be using
these terms to refer to entropy -- which is something that actually
increases and decreases all the time in *individual* organisms, completely
regardless of 'evolution'. Evolution is just as likely, if not more so, to
involve a mere reshuffling of existing entropic order than an actual
increase or decrease of it.
Actually, the closest we have come to a scientifically legitimate
contradiction of the 2nd law is based on Boltzmann's statistical
interpretation of it, which says that it is not actually a fixed,
irresistible 'law' at all, but merely a consequence of the fact that there
are many more possible disordered states of most systems than ordered ones.
In fact, most scientists today would consider it reasonably plausible that
if you wait long enough, any system will eventually violate the 2nd law,
purely by random chance in the shuffling of its particles -- the only reason
we haven't directly observed this happening is that the 'long enough' you
have to wait is usually on the order of trillions of times the current age
of the universe.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
House: I was curious. Since I'm not a cat, that's not dangerous.
Wilson: I don't think that metaphor was actually designed to warn cats.
Sean Carroll
> Janice (jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com) wrote:
> : Evolution is observable -- from bacteria to humans, it is increasingly
> : complex and of a higher order. It is an observable contradiction of
> : entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.
> Without the energy from the sun all life would cease and quickly become
> less complex. It is easy to see that the entropy of the sun must be
> included in any calculation about the total entropy of the system in which
> life exists. When the entropy of the sun is included then there is no
> contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.
The pulling of energy from the Sun is actually only *one* example of the
many ways that living organisms form thermodynamically open systems, to
which the 2nd law is by definition therefore not applicable. For example,
all living things take in nutrition and excrete waste of some sort or
another. This is a process that decreases the entropy inside the organism by
*increasing* the net entropy of its *environment*: what starts out as
low-entropy food goes through the organism, absorbs part of its internal
entropy, and comes out as high-entropy waste. In this way the entropy of a
living thing is reduced, while the total entropy of the entire system that
includes both the organism *and* its environment is increased.
Of course, most of the low-entropy order in that food they take in
ultimately traces back to the Sun -- plants take the energy directly from
sunlight, herbivores get it from eating plants, and carnivores get it from
eating herbivores. So your simpler explanation is *basically* right, on a
general conceptual level. But there are also life forms that exist
completely independent of the Sun, getting their nutrition through a process
called chemosynthesis. Also, there are other ways in which organisms create
order by increasing the disorder in their environment, besides eating --
respiration, for example.
IMO, it's much more informative in terms of understanding *why* the 2nd law
is not violated to consider the concept of organisms as open thermodynamic
systems in the abstract, rather than reducing it to one simplistic added
variable like 'the energy from the Sun'. But that's just a matter of
personal preference; your explanation may not be exhaustive, but it's also
not really incorrect, either.
Gill Smith
news:48e3cdbf$0$5489$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> Good example! -- except that it in absolutely no way *is* a contradiction
> of the law, which is only applicable to *thermodynamically closed*
> systems, of which evolving, living organisms are NOT an example. (See the
> works of Ilya Prigogine on 'dissipative structures', for example, for an
> explanation of how living systems create order *without* violating the 2nd
> law.)
This is for an UNconscious universe.
<poof>
Lights, camera, consciousness...............
Om.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Janice
> . . .
> This is for an UNconscious universe.
> <poof>
> Lights, camera, consciousness...............
> Om.
Yes. Thank you. That's what I meant.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gill.Sm...@googlemail.com
It's high time philosophers were brought back into science so they can
get on with formulating some laws for consciousness.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Richard Heathfield
> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in
> news:8ZidnTLyaZqqYX7V...@posted.plusnet:
>
>> "Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:48e3cdbf$0$5489$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>
>>> Good example! -- except that it in absolutely no way *is* a
>>> contradiction of the law, which is only applicable to
>>> *thermodynamically closed* systems, of which evolving, living
>>> organisms are NOT an example. (See the works of Ilya Prigogine on
>>> 'dissipative structures', for example, for an explanation of how
>>> living systems create order *without* violating the 2nd law.)
>>
>> This is for an UNconscious universe.
>>
>> <poof>
>>
>> Lights, camera, consciousness...............
>>
>> Om.
>
> The universe *is* unconscious,
Pierre Teilhard du Chardin would disagree.
Janice
> > "Gill Smith" <gill.smith....@googlemail.com> wrote in
> . . .
> >> This is for an UNconscious universe.
>
> >> <poof>
>
> >> Lights, camera, consciousness...............
>
> >> Om.
>
> Pierre Teilhard du Chardin would disagree.
"Yonder breaks the sun, to light the uttermost east, and then to send
its sheets of fire over the living surface of the earth, which wakens,
shudders, and resumes its appalling struggle. " - Teilhard du Chardin
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bernie Woodham
>
> I mean, if you type: Sing
> these girls will singhttp://www.beer.com/virtualbartender2/
Every order I type in, they look at each other and then walk up to the
camera together and wagging their fingers, they say, "No".
Janice
Ack, that was confusing. (sorry, too many >>>'s to keep track of)
Try this:
On Oct 2, 9:24 am, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> The universe *is* unconscious, and your point has nothing to do with the
> second law, anyhow. Crackpot
The Starmaker
Where do you buy your smoke from? I'm guessing it's either Columbian Gold or Columbian Red..
i'm leaning towards the red.
Bluuuue Rajah
The universe is *still* unconscious, and even if it weren't, the forces
carrying this so-called consciousness would still be constrained to move at
the speed of light, which is slow as molasses on the cosmological scale.
The Starmaker
It took me a long time too until I ordered a beer!
Gill Smith
news:5qydnel4jtDQnnjV...@bt.com...
> Bluuuue Rajah said:
>
>> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> news:8ZidnTLyaZqqYX7V...@posted.plusnet:
>>
>>> news:48e3cdbf$0$5489$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>
>>>> Good example! -- except that it in absolutely no way *is* a
>>>> contradiction of the law, which is only applicable to
>>>> *thermodynamically closed* systems, of which evolving, living
>>>> organisms are NOT an example. (See the works of Ilya Prigogine on
>>>> 'dissipative structures', for example, for an explanation of how
>>>> living systems create order *without* violating the 2nd law.)
>>>
>>> This is for an UNconscious universe.
>>>
>>> <poof>
>>>
>>> Lights, camera, consciousness...............
>>>
>>> Om.
>>
>
> Pierre Teilhard du Chardin would disagree.
Descartes even more so.
>>>>>>>>>---------------------<<<<<<<<<
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
>>>>>>>>>---------------------<<<<<<<<<
Bernie Woodham
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
>
>
> > Pierre Teilhard du Chardin would disagree.
>
> Descartes even more so.
>
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him
if he would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a
puff of logic.
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in
: news:8ZidnTLyaZqqYX7V...@posted.plusnet:
: > "Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:48e3cdbf$0$5489$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
: >
: >> Good example! -- except that it in absolutely no way *is* a
: >> contradiction of the law, which is only applicable to
: >> *thermodynamically closed* systems, of which evolving, living
: >> organisms are NOT an example. (See the works of Ilya Prigogine on
: >> 'dissipative structures', for example, for an explanation of how
: >> living systems create order *without* violating the 2nd law.)
: >
: > This is for an UNconscious universe.
: >
: > <poof>
: >
: > Lights, camera, consciousness...............
: >
: > Om.
: The universe *is* unconscious, and your point has nothing to do with the
: second law, anyhow. Crackpot.
How do you know the universe is unconscious? I sure don't have any way to
know one way or the other. You're just guessing. If a bacterium were
conscious it would probably say the same thing about things our size.
Janice
wrote:
> Bluuuue Rajah (Bluuuuue@Rajah.) wrote:
>
> . . .
> : The universe *is* unconscious, and your point has nothing to do with the
> : second law, anyhow. Crackpot.
>
> How do you know the universe is unconscious? I sure don't have any way to
> know one way or the other. You're just guessing. If a bacterium were
> conscious it would probably say the same thing about things our size.
Who is dreaming you?
> Janice wrote:
> I have this theory, that when one of the really good ones passes over,
> they release all this essentially gifted energy that they have
> nurtured and cultivated all during their earth gig... and then this
> essence flows out into the world and reinvents itself in the lives of
> hundreds or thousands or millions of others. I'm pretty sure this is
> true, because a week after Abbie Hoffman died, thousands of young
> people were standing up in protest against the guns of the Chinese
> regime in Tiananmen Square -- I figured it was just Abbie pouring out
> all over the world.
>
> Wonder what Richard Wright will release on his way. . .
Offhand, just by observation, I'd say that so far Richard has released
some interesting musings about being and not being, something and
nothing, consciousness and UNconsciousness, science &
philosophy . . . all probably pouring in from that Great Gig in the
Sky :)
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sean Carroll
> Sean Carroll wrote:
I wish it were either. The last few years, it seems that whenever I have an
opportunity to get some, I have no money, and whenever I have money, I have
no opportunity.
I think tomorrow I'm going to plant some old seeds I have and see if I can
get them to sprout.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
House: You don't like her shoes. You like her *legs*.
PI Lucas: It sounds less creepy if you say 'shoes'.
House: Less creepy, more gay.
PI Lucas: That's my firm's motto!