Que du bon, que de la vraie vie! Mais opposer les bling-bling aux personnes consciencieuses et travailleuses aux vies vaguement ennuyeuses est un peu court. Certes, le ridicule colle au comportement des stars. Heureusement, il y a des exceptions! J'ai dit que je te connaissais et qu'il fallait lire tes textes De quel droit leur interdire une vie meilleure? Quand ils sont peu nombreux, ils font leur travail de nettoyage. S'ils deviennent plus trop?
On ne parle plus de son ubuesque blocage du prix des petits croissants et des pommes de terre. Si je ne suis donc un admirateur de M. Barre, je trouve votre critique excessive. En France, nous avons le Canard et les Guignols de l'info quel pays peut en dire autant?
L’Europe est-elle chrétienne ?
Je ne souhaite donc pas que M. Pourquoi y croyez-vous? Comment vous-y retrouvez-vous? La qualifier de post-industrialiste serait insuffisant. J'ai heureusement pu en lire des extraits sur votre site web. J'attends toujours. Lettre d'excuses de nouveau. Ah bon Comme c'est bon d'avoir quelqu'un en face de soi. Je me console en me disant que si parler plusieurs langues surtout le chinois, n'est-ce pas? Let us be French, but let us speak the World Language, which is still but more and more wrongly called "English" and is sometimes so bizarrely used by our good old British. En outre chacun comprendrait mieux ce qu'il dit dans sa propre langue!
Si l'indice ne le fait pas, il faut le changer, pensent-ils. Je ferai trois observations : 1. Tel est mon cas. Ne peut-on plus parler librement de l'islam maintenant?
Les reliefs du mausolée d'Igel dans le cadre des représentations romaines de l'au-delà
Ce texte est remarquable et je pense que si le Pape le voyait, il te dirait merci. Ta conclusion dit, en trois mots, juste ce qu'il faut dire et que bien des gens ont besoin d'entendre. Votre propre conclusion semble moins ouverte au monde et vos propos bien plus blessants. Ces objectifs sont aussi ceux des objecteurs de croissance. Il faut les lire et relire pour analyser leur fondement.
Pourtant c'est le pays des Camisards. Je ne suis pas optimiste. S'il fallait attendre la science pour lui faire obstacle, on serait mal parti.
- Sociétés et rites de passage?
- Immunomodulating Drugs for the Treatment of Cancer.
- Superlópez. Tú, robot… (Magos Del Humor) (Spanish Edition).
- Similar authors to follow?
- Terror and the War on Dissent: Freedom of Expression in the Age of Al-Qaeda.
Je l'ai fait lire par notre DSI et par certains directeurs. Le DSI, lui, a l'air plus lucide mais on verra Je regrette seulement que les citations soient anonymes Il faut aller plus loin chercher les clients : la route de la soie se constitue par morceaux, parcourue par des caravanes. Ton papier n'est pas beaucoup plus optimiste.
Le directeur informatique devient alors un gestionnaire de contrat. Babafou est un authentique informaticien.
Journal des débats de l'Assemblée nationale - National Assembly of Québec
Il a pris ce pseudonyme sous lequel il est connu. Je vous recommande la distribution Ubuntu www. Mais il s'agit de bien autre chose. La question serait de faire briller le plus de monde possible! C'est ce que pensaient Smith et Keynes, ce n'est pas ce que pense la plupart de nos concitoyens. Microsoft et les autres ont fait leur fortune sur le copyright et non sur les brevets qui ne sont apparus qu'en aux Etats-Unis. Merci de nous offrir un peu de recul. J'aurais mille raisons de voter NON.
Lorsqu'une constitution est mauvaise, on en discute et on vote pour ou contre. L'histoire est faite de projets inaboutis. La catastrophe est moins probable que ne le dit Dupuy, du moins sous cette ampleur. Ce livre dit des choses justes mais il ne fait pas grandir. J'y vois une contradiction du type "Faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais". Il ne me semble pas que ce soit exact. Le Petit Livre du Verseau. Essais de sciences maudites. Stanislas de Guaita. Les secrets des 12 signes du zodiaque. Marius Decrespe. Nostradamus - Propheties. How to write a great review. The review must be at least 50 characters long.
The title should be at least 4 characters long.
Your display name should be at least 2 characters long. At Kobo, we try to ensure that published reviews do not contain rude or profane language, spoilers, or any of our reviewer's personal information. You submitted the following rating and review. We'll publish them on our site once we've reviewed them. Continue shopping. Item s unavailable for purchase. Please review your cart. You can remove the unavailable item s now or we'll automatically remove it at Checkout.
Remove FREE. Unavailable for purchase. Continue shopping Checkout Continue shopping. Chi ama i libri sceglie Kobo e inMondadori. Choose Store. Or, get it for Kobo Super Points! Un vrai chercheur doit ignorer les "grandes questions" qui peuvent faire douter. Science sans conscience, hein, comme chacun sait. Incomestible, elle est. Faudra t'y faire. Irreducible Mind fills a much needed gap. My review of Irreducible Mind is out with the latest issue of Skeptic. I will post the review somewhere in due time, but for the moment I just want to make a few comments about this book, from a slightly different angle than what I say in the review.
It's a negative review, of course, but there are good reasons to be even more scathing and angry at such a book which is exactly what I plan to do here. This is all the more so that Irreducible Mind henceforth IM , as far as I know, only had positive reviews until now, and only in pro-paranormal venues. There is actually one review of this book I think would be worth reading, but I have no access to the journal in which it was published.
The truly astonishing hypothesis. Edward F. Otherwise I'll just ask Etzel Cardena myself one of these days. So yeah, this book was increasingly being presented, in woo woo land, as a sort of upcoming revolution in the humdrum universe of sheepishly mainstream psychologists and neuroscientists who are mainly materialists by default, obviously not realizing the inconsistencies of such an obsolete position, stupid as they are.
You see, mainstream scientists i. What IM shows however, through more than pages of marshalling irrefutable evidence, is that the brain merely transmits consciousness. Or filters it whatever that means. So there is a conflict , you see, a controversy between the productive theory, and the transmissive theory of mind-brain relationships. Isn't that great? Every side of the debate has something to bring to the table, and boy, do scientists looove a cool controversy to resolve! This is of course ridiculous, there is no debate at all.
But the "transmissive" "theory" is actually taken absolutely seriously by a number of people nowadays. Mostly crackpots, which we'll meet again and again on this blog. Nonetheless, this idiotic "theory" is totally legitimate,we are told, because William James himself held such a view. William James! That's an impressive endorsement, of course, but it doesn't really tell us what the "transmissive" approach is actually supposed to be, does it? Surely the explanation is somewhere in the book.
Well, unfortunately, it isn't, and it is clear that the authors don't care at all about what exactly this "transmissive" theory really entails. And this is the crucial thing to realize about IM and the agenda behind it.
- Spy Series: Allies and Assassination.
- Kabuki Costume.
- uljxfti.tk Ebooks and Manuals.
- Teaching the American Civil Rights Movement: Freedoms Bittersweet Song!
- Discussion:Hindouisme/Archive 2 — Wikipédia.
- A.I. Apocalypse (Singularity Series Book 2).
It's just like the Intelligent Design creationist movement feels no need to explain what "intelligent design" actually is and how it works: the authors behind IM don't need to explain what they think is being "transmitted" through the brain, how it is being "transmitted", and from where note also the coincidental use of the word "irreducible" in the book's title, maybe that rings a bell.
Well, theory and mechanisms are just not the point of Irreducible Mind anyway. The real point is to somehow acknowledge the discoveries and fabulous progress allowed by the neurosciences and related disciplines only an idiot or a liar could do otherwise , while at the same time saying that this is "not the whole story".
In other words, the materialistic-reductionistic model is not as wrong as it is incomplete. By doing so, you can still allow your healthy dosis of woo, soul-stuff and Jeezus into the equation that was built by serious and hard working people, and someday, hopefully, maybe get students to learn about the controversy between psychical research, religion and actual science. This "not the whole story" thing is an extremely effective and boring ploy that I encounter again and again. There is not a single argument in the world that cannot be complemented, if not refuted, by the very cheap statement "you might be right, but this is not the whole story".
Hey, you can actually write more than pages with such a brilliant strategy. The deluded love it, as it's not really important that they don't have the whole story either. They simply like it when they don't understand something, which is why psi believers make so great scientists nowadays. Well, that's the message, folks, there's nothing else in there. The authors of IM are simply deep into the explanatory gap , up to their neck, and they have no idea of how to get out.
- Kabuki Costume!
- Reward Yourself.
- Invitation to Passion: Open Invitation, Book 3.
- Menu de navigation.
Nor do they really want to, of course, for it really feels good down there, it's all cozy and warm, bathing in your own tedious imaginary world, full of ignorance and smugness, without actually accomplishing anything of value in the real world. Mental causation , yeah, that's the problem we're told, that's the real issue. You cannot explain it without woo, and, well, you cannot explain woo without more woo.
Overall, it really reminds me of the title Richard Dawkins gave to the final chapter of The God Delusion : "a much needed gap". Apparently, as Dawkins found out, it is not uncommon for book reviews to state things such as "this book fills a much needed gap". While this is of course funny, it actually does apply perfectly to IM. Indeed, its authors need the gap they have made up, as their main business is to pretend there is a need to fill it. There is much more to say about IM and its authors, but for the moment try to grab a copy of the current issue of Skeptic and read my nasty review.
If you don't have access to that excellent magazine, ask me for a reprint. One last comment, something else about the "transmissive" theory. I've noticed that my fellow infidel and NDE-realist Keith Augustine has been caught in a discussion of this very idea. You can read it there in the comments, although I wouldn't really recommend you spend too much time there. The point is that Keith tries to defend the "productive" theory against a horde of believers, and in doing so provides an analogy he thinks might be effective in conveying the fallacy behind the "transmissive" theory.
It all started with another analogy involving the Mars Rover, and here's what Keith wrote: "Perhaps an analogy is appropriate here. Let's say we have two separate, interacting things: A Predator drone and the remote pilot controlling it from a distance. What's the worst the captors can do to the remote pilot, miles away? They can destroy the drone's camera, making it blind. The person controlling the drone will no longer be able to see the environment around the drone.
They can destroy the microphone, making it deaf, and again, the radio controller will no longer be able to hear what is going on. Ditto if the wires connecting the camera and microphone to the transmitter are severed. Information from the senses has been cut off. Next, suppose that the wires connecting the receiver to the drone's engines are severed. Now the pilot cannot even blindly control the drone. You cannot affect the the controller's ability to do math, to understand language, or recognize undistorted faces.
You cannot get the controller to go into a psychotic rage by manipulating the drone's radio. But you can make someone psychotic by spiking his drink with PCP, or prevent him from being able to do simple addition by lesioning certain areas of his brain. In short, basic neuroscientific facts are simply inexplicable on any variety of substance dualism. But this is a convoluted way to address a simple problem. Indeed, the "transmissive" theory is unwarranted simply because it is useless to account for the facts.
It is an inacceptable violation of Occam's razor, and the only way to address it is with similarly idiotic explanations. What causes crop-circles? Well, there is evidence that some of them are human made, but this does not mean that aliens, from their spaceship, have not taken control of those humans in order to produce their oeuvres. I call this the "middleman" theory of crop-circles. Show me the evidence against it. Quine would have loved it! The Phantomologist is just born. Welcome to the Phantomologist, my new blog.
My name is Sebastian Dieguez, I am a PhD student working on the cognitive neuroscience of self-awareness, I live in Lausanne Switzerland , I am Spanish, and if you come back here you will perhaps learn more about me. Here's some info about what I plan to do here: the phantomologist will be a bilingual french-english blog mostly about my opinions on science, beliefs, the neurosciences, the human body, religion, politics, local affairs, AND SO FORTH.
Why the "Phantomologist"?