Famed Harvard Biologist Gould Dies

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020520/ap_on_re_us/obit_gould ^ | 5/20/02 | yahoo

[rpage3]

See source for details....

[PatrickHenry]

I'm available as a retainer for others who might need their thinking done for them. I bill by the hour ...

Are you available on a contingency basis? No thoughts, no pay?

[general_re]

It's a contrast thing - think of it as the male red yang to the female blue yin. Seek balance in all things ;)

[general_re]

Are you available on a contingency basis? No thoughts, no pay?

We can work something out, depending on the type of thought expected. Unnatural thoughts, like those of say, Democrats, cannot be engaged in on a contingency basis, however - such things require the standard hourly rate, a large retainer, and probably a sizeable per diem also.

If, however, you find that you don't need a complete train of thought, I also have a large selection of pre-formed random musings available for a flat fee. And I have a few musty old half-baked ideas that I'll let go pretty cheap.

Prices and references available on request. All thoughts sold "as is". All sales final.

[Heartlander]

The point of the square circle question, as you well know, was to simply illustrate the intrinsic qualities that define an entity. If a square did not have ‘squareness’ why would we call it a square. If God were to change His Law’s the ‘Perfectness’ or ‘Justness’ or other intrinsic qualities (depending on the change) would not apply.

Now theoretically, in a freethinking sense, it would be possible for God to wipe out everything and redefine Himself. But then again, in a freethinking sense, maybe He already did, maybe He is doing it now., maybe everything is an illusion and – well who cares… Yippee!

Is it possible to be so open minded that you mind has become closed? Is it possible to be non-committal to the point of commitment? Are the intrinsic qualities of a free thinker ‘squareness and ‘obtuseness’. Yes, in a freethinking sense ; )

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks for looking over the link and for addressing some of the stronger points.

Is God omnipotent or isn't He?

He is. But "omnipotence" means the power to do all that is possible, not absolutely all. Even God can't make a circle a square at the same time, make 2+2=5, or make me exist and not exist simultaneously. And He can't make a rock so big He couldn't lift it, because that is a self-defeating proposition for an all-powerful Being from the get-go. :-)

Seems okay, eh? Except that that is most definitely not what "omnipotence" means. As one can clearly see from the dictionary definition, "omnipotence" means "having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful." Nowhere is this notion that omnipotence only includes the "possible" present.

Where does self-limitation come in under "having unlimited or universal power?"

The term "absolutely all" is vague here. The author should have said that "omnipotence means the power to do all that is logically possible, not the nonsensical." The assertion that "God can't make a square circle" can't be supported or refuted because in reality it isn't an assertion. It is simply a string of words without meaning like "purple dog yesterday hat."

The assertion that "God can't make 2 + 2 = 5" is wrong for the same reason. 2 + 2 = 4, always and everywhere. To say that "2 + 2 = 5" is an error and therefore a meaningless grouping of symbols. Again, the "assertion" doesn't rise to the level of a true assertion.

Could God make a rock so big He couldn't lift it? No. This is an error in definition and a semantic sleight of hand.

The question really boils down to: "If God is omnipotent, can He limit Himself?"

The answer is a logical no. Self-limitation would be a defect in omnipotence. Since God is omnipotent He "can't" limit His power. But this is a logical limit and not a true limitation. It's really a contradiction in terms, since by definition one who is omnipotent is all powerful and unlimited in power.

And I would say that if God is omnipotent, He also is not "bound" by the laws of logic.

Again, you are confused over definitions, as explained above. God can't break the law of non-contradiction because that is simply the way things are. If they weren't, we would have a chaotic universe. God can't make Himself not exist either, or go back and prevent Himself from being eternal, because He is pure Existence. And Jesus (who is God) is also the Logos, or Word, and this is the very Greek word from which we get the word "logic." So logic, like love is grounded in God - not above Him. I put "bound" in quotes for a very good reason.

Same problem as above - we're relying on some special definition of "omnipotence", which just so happens to be a very convenient definition for the purposes of the author.

No, the author is relying on the dictionary definition. Omnipotence means power without limit. A being with unlimited power cannot by definition be limited by anything, even itself.

  A different one altogether:

I believe that sin is sin because it contradicts what God desires, but that if He desired that we all wear green hats, then to wear a purple one would be sinful. There is no Universal Law of Green Hats, but if God desired it so, morals would require it.

So He could change His mind tomorrow and assert that the Nazi Holocaust or the abortion Holocaust is moral and praiseworthy? This is blasphemous.

This is hardly a refutation of the point being made, really - it is simply an attempt to draw a boundary in such a way as to define the questioner's point as being off-limits. Again, very convenient - it certainly saves one the trouble of bothering to construct a refutation.

Well, the refutation is quite lengthy, and his response is factually correct if not comprehensive. It's an appeal to intuition.

Anyway, here's my attempt to answer the question. God is One, Good, True, Beautiful and Being. He is perfect and therefore a simple spiritual substance (with no parts). There is no potency in God, for if there were God would be moved, and He can't be moved otherwise He would not be the Prime Mover. Therefore God is pure act.

Since God is Good and immutable, His goodness must be immutable. Goodness is the actualization of the proper end of a thing. The ultimate proper end for all things is God. Therefore, the proper ends of all individual things are ordered to their ultimate end in God. The proper, final end for a human being is eternal life with God. The proper end for the human will is happiness or the love of God for his own sake and the desire for the good for self and others. This gets very complex as you can read below:

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God). In asking whether there is an eternal law, he begins by stating a general definition of all law: Law is a dictate of reason from the ruler for the community he rules. This dictate of reason is first and foremost within the reason or intellect of the ruler. It is the idea of what should be done to insure the well ordered functioning of whatever community the ruler has care for. (It is a fundamental tenet of Aquinas' political theory that rulers rule for the sake of the governed, i.e. for the good and well-being of those subject to the ruler.) Since he has elsewhere shown that God rules the world with his reason (since he is the cause of its being (cf. ST Ia 22, 1-2), Aquinas concludes that God has in His intellect an idea by which He governs the world. This Idea, in God, for the governance of things is the eternal law. (Summa TheologiaeI-IIae, 91, 1)

Next, Aquinas asks whether there is in us a natural law. First, he makes a distinction: A law is not only in the reason of a ruler, but may also be in the thing that is ruled. In the case of the Eternal Law, the things of creation that are ruled by that Law have it imprinted on the them through their nature or essence. Since things act according to their nature, they derive their proper acts and ends (final cause) according to the law that is written into their nature. Everything in nature, insofar as they reflects the order by which God directs them through their nature for their own benefit, reflects the Eternal Law in their own natures. (S.T. I-IIae, 91, 2)

The Natural Law, as applied to the case of human beings, requires greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free will. It is the our nature humans to act freely (i.e. to be provident for ourselves and others) by being inclined toward our proper acts and end. That is, we human beings must exercise our natural reason to discover what is best for us in order to acheive the end to which their nature inclines. Furhtermore, we must exercise our freedom, by choosing what reason determines to naturally suited to us, i.e. what is best for our nature. The natural inclination of humans to acheive their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law. Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil.

In applying this universal notion of Natural Law to the human person, one first must decide what it is that God has ordained human nature to be inclined toward. Since each thing has a nature given it by God, and each thing has a natural end, so there is a fulfillment to human activity of living. When a person discovers by reason what the purpose of living is, he or she discover his or her natural end is. Accepting the medieval dictum "happiness is what all desire" a person is happy when he or she achieves this natural end.

Aquinas distinguishes different levels of precepts or commands that the Natural Law entails. The most universal is the command "Good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided." This applies to everything and everyone, so much so that some consider it to be more of a description or definition of what we mean by "good." For these philosophers, a thing is "good" just in case it is pursued or done by someone. Aquinas would agree with this to a certain extent; but he would say that that is a definition of an apparent good. Thus, this position of Aquinas has a certain phenomenological appeal: a person does anything and everything he or she does only because that thing at least "appears" to be good. Even when I choose something that I know is bad for myself, I nevertheless chooses it under some aspect of good, i.e. as some kind of good. I know the cake is fattening, for example, and I don't choose to eat it as fattening. I do, however, choose to eat it as tasty (which is an apparent, though not a true, good).

On the level that we share with all substances, the Natural Law commands that we preserve ourselves in being. Therefore, one of the most basic precepts of the Natural Law is to not commit suicide. (Nevertheless, suicide can, sadly, be chosen as an apparent good, e.g. as the sessation of pain.) On the level we share with all living things, the Natural Law commands that we take care of our life, and transmit that life to the next generation. Thus, almost as basic as the preservation of our lives, the Natural Law commands us to rear and care for offspring. On the level that is most specific to humans, the fulfillment of the Natural Law consists in the exercize those activities that are unique of humans, i.e. knowledge and love, and in a state that is also natural to human persons, i.e. society. The Natural Law, thus, commands us to develop our rational and moral capacities by growing in the virtues of intellect (prudence, art, and science) and will (justice, courage, temperance). Natural law also commands those things that make for the harmonious functioning of society ("Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal.") Human nature also shows that each of us have a destiny beyond this world, too. Man's infinite capacity to know and love shows that he is destined to know and love an infinite being, God.

All of these levels of precepts so far outlined are only the most basic. "The good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided" is not very helpful for making actual choices. Therefore, Aquinas believes that one needs one's reason to be perfected by the virtues, especially prudence, in order to discover precepts of the Natural Law that are more proximate to the choices that one has to make on a day to day basis. The Thomistic notion of Natural Law has its roots, then, in a quite basic understanding of the universe as caused and cared for by God, and the basic notion of what a law is. It is a fairly sophisticated notion by which to ground the legitimacy of human law in something more universal than the mere agreement and decree of legislators. Yet, it allows that what the Natural Law commands or allows is not perfectly obvious when one gets to the proximate level of commanding or forbidding specific acts. It grounds the notion that there are some things that are wrong, always and everywhere, i.e. "crimes against humanity," while avoiding the obvious dificulties of claiming that this is determined by any sort of human concensus. Nevertheless, it still sees the interplay of people in social and rational discourse as necessary to determine what in particular the Natural Law requires.

[general_re]

If a square did not have ?squareness? why would we call it a square.

Because the relationship between a thing and what we call that thing is arbitrary. We could have as easily called three-sided figures "squares" and round figures "triangles" and four-sided figures "circles". And no matter what we called them, the things themselves would not change.

But then again, in a freethinking sense, maybe He already did, maybe He is doing it now., maybe everything is an illusion and...

Maybe. Can't really prove otherwise, can you? ;)

? well who cares? Yippee!

Well, I have a vested interest, since here I am.

Is it possible to be so open minded that you mind has become closed? Is it possible to be non-committal to the point of commitment?

Is it possible to be circular to the point of squareness?

I have given this idea of the square circle some thought. And I have come up with two possibilities. Here's the first one:

I like this one. It has (at least) four sides, Each of the four "major" sides is parallel to another of the major sides, and perpendicular to the other two, and all are of equal length. Hence, it is a square. However, by virtue of the fact that it has curved regions, it actually has an infinite number of "minor" sides, and an infinite number of tangents. Hence, it is a circle.

That was my first idea. Then I hit on this one:

[Heartlander]

Once more, you miss the point. But then again, does a point really exist? If you don’t believe anything – do you ‘know’ anything?

Hey, how do you know if you’re not just making stuff up? How come I can know it but you can’t?

[general_re]

Once more, you miss the point. But then again, does a point really exist?

Insofar as I exist, yes - I am a collection of an infinite number of points in Euclidean 3-space. So is the desk I am sitting at. I have points galore at my disposal.

If you don?t believe anything ? do you ?know? anything?

Maybe it's because I can't really know anything that I believe things. Or maybe not.

Hey, how do you know if you?re not just making stuff up?

The past is a fiction designed to account for any disparity between my current surroundings and my current state of mind. How do I know that I am just making stuff up?

How come I can know it but you can?t?

Do you know it, or just believe it?

[Heartlander]

Free thought scratches in vain at the fleas of conformity.

It is sad to watch.

[Heartlander]

Maybe it's because I can't really know anything that I believe things. Or maybe not.

The past is a fiction designed to account for any disparity between my current surroundings and my current state of mind. How do I know that I am just making stuff up?

Listen to yourself. You don’t believe anything so you are in essence the epitome of the devil’s advocate. If you want to discuss something, come back when you believe or know something. Until then:

I am a collection of an infinite number of points in Euclidean 3-space. So is the desk I am sitting at. I have points galore at my disposal.

These are your only points.

[general_re]

Thanks for looking over the link and for addressing some of the stronger points.

Hmmm. I was looking for the weaker points ;)

The assertion that "God can't make a square circle" can't be supported or refuted because in reality it isn't an assertion. It is simply a string of words without meaning like "purple dog yesterday hat."

Do you mean that the assertion that "God can make a square circle" can't be supported or refuted? Because I thought that you had been trying to support the notion that He can't do such a thing all along.

Nevertheless, it is a grammatically and syntactically correct sentence, unlike your proposed analogue. And it is a proposition, the same as any other. The truth of that proposition may not be accessible to logical proof, but the fact that I can construct two square circles, a la #766, suggests to me that God can also do such a thing. It seems equally nonsensical to suggest that I, limited as I am, can do something that an omnipotent God cannot.

Simply because you find it difficult or impossible to reconcile the notion of a square circle with your understanding of plane geometry, why does it follow that God is equally incapable of reconciling such a thing? You were thoughtful enough to warn me of the dangers of anthropomorphizing - allow me to return the favor by suggesting that imputing your own limitations to God is also a form of anthropomorphization.

The assertion that "God can't make 2 + 2 = 5" is wrong for the same reason. 2 + 2 = 4, always and everywhere. To say that "2 + 2 = 5" is an error and therefore a meaningless grouping of symbols. Again, the "assertion" doesn't rise to the level of a true assertion.

Gravity exists, always and everywhere, yet I am asked to believe that God can violate this at will. Is it not inconsistent (albeit exceptionally convenient) to suggest that one class of laws is inviolable while another is not?

The answer is a logical no. Self-limitation would be a defect in omnipotence. Since God is omnipotent He "can't" limit His power. But this is a logical limit and not a true limitation. It's really a contradiction in terms, since by definition one who is omnipotent is all powerful and unlimited in power.
...
No, the author is relying on the dictionary definition. Omnipotence means power without limit. A being with unlimited power cannot by definition be limited by anything, even itself.

You propose that omnipotence in terms of a being that has the power to limit itself is inherently self-contradictory. Therefore, to resolve this apparent contradiction, you propose that an omnipotent being cannot have the power to limit itself. However, this new definition is itself inherently self-contradictory also, since we have defined a power that an ostensibly all-powerful being cannot have.

It now seems clear to me that any possible definition of omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory. Perhaps we ought to discard the notion of omnipotence altogether, in light of the fact that we apparently cannot resolve the paradoxes inherent within such a concept.

[AndrewC]

The idea is, the mind isn't some separate entity from the brain itself. It's simply what the brain does.

I then presume that you deny the possibility of an artificial mind.

Do you think there is analogy between the mind and a general purpose computer? A GP computer "mechanically" functions. When power is applied, electronics signals are generated, heat is produced, voltages are switched etc. However to do something "useful" it must have a program. Once a program is introduced into this "mechanical" vessel, the vessel becomes quite a different thing. The program is also considerably a different thing than the vessel. Does the program require a particular vessel? Generally, no. Now the question becomes does it require any vessel? At this point your acceptance or rejection of the analogy is needed to go on further.

[general_re]

Free thought scratches in vain at the fleas of conformity.

Indeed, non-conformists are often dismayed at the prevalence of conformity among others.

It is sad to watch.

Yesterday you were happy. Have your surroundings changed, or is the fiction that is the past causing a disparity between your surroundings and your current state of mind?

Or have you just not had enough coffee yet? ;)

Listen to yourself. You don?t believe anything so you are in essence the epitome of the devil?s advocate. If you want to discuss something, come back when you believe or know something.

I believe lots of things. Lots and lots of things.

These are your only points.

But I have an infinite number of them. Even if they are individually almost worthless, an infinite number of them is priceless ;)

[AndrewC]

However, by virtue of the fact that it has curved regions, it actually has an infinite number of "minor" sides, and an infinite number of tangents. Hence, it is a circle.

False conclusion. How many tangents does a hyperbola have?

As for the symbolic representation, that is no different than the words "square circle".

[Aquinasfan]

A) How can God have any effects at all if He is metaphysically static?

He is not static at all. He is pure act. Pure being. All things participate in His being. Being does not belong to the essence of any created thing and only belongs to God properly. Only in God are essence and act of existence the same thing.

I didn't phrase this properly before, so let me try it again. I apprehend the essence or nature of "horse" whether or not a real horse is present. I apprehend the nature or essence of my golden retriever even though he's dead. Philosophically speaking, my dead dog is no longer "in act" yet his essence or nature persists (because it is available to me right now). Therefore, being or the act of existence does not belong properly to the essence of my dog. My dog participated in existence which does/did not belong to him essentially.

B) We do understand other human minds enough to know that if you damage the physical brain in specific ways, the person's mind will also be damaged in specific ways.

But how do we know that there is a mind there to be damaged to begin with?

Can you tell me how a mind - any mind - could exist apart from a physical brain of some kind to hold & generate those thoughts?

Thought is an immanent, spiritual or non-material activity. For human beings who are compound substances (matter and form/ body and soul), the body is required to "enter (sensible) information" into the mind and to express thought in the visible, material world. (Thomistic epistemology is a difficult subject to describe briefly).

While it is difficult (although not at all impossible) to positively explain Thomistic epistemology, it is possible to refute all other materialst, reductionist explanations for the existence of mind and consciousness because of their internal contradictions.

For example, if the mind is reducible to matter (if it is a complex machine), how can we know with certainty whether it is functioning properly? How do I know whether my "machine" is malfunctioning? In fact, how would it be possible to know anything with certainty? If I assert that we can know at least some things with certainty and you assert that we cannot know anything with certainty, and both assertions are equally the products of strictly material processes, from what objective basis can we determine the truth of our contradictary statements?

Under a materialist epistemological rubric, in a theoretical materialist universe, we cannot resolve these countervailing claims.

But in the real world, in this not-strictly-material world, we do know things with certainty –thoughts that can't be "unthought"– like the law of non-contradiction. Materialistic explanations of the mind cannot and can never resolve this problem.

Additionally, materialism cannot explain consciousness or the "I." Who or what is "I." I know with certainty that I exist, but where am I? Am I the sum of my body parts? Then if my arm gets cut off am I 3/4 of a person? Am I my thoughts? Then there are as many "me's" as thoughts. Am I the mechanism that "scans" my thoughts? Then there must be as many scanning mechanisms as discrete acts of scanning, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Similarly, can you tell me how a triangle could exist apart from three entities that make up its vertices?

No, because a triangle has three sides by definition. Without sides it wouldn't be a triangle. What's your point?

[longshadow]

The point of the square circle question, as you well know, was to simply illustrate the intrinsic qualities that define an entity.

But I assert it is trivial to specify a square that is perfectly circular and is yet still a square.

Doesn't that undo your illustration?

You do concur it is possible to specify a square that is perfectly circular and is yet still a square, don't you?

[general_re]

False conclusion. How many tangents does a hyperbola have?

Those conditions are necessary but not sufficient, I admit. But a hyperbola in 2-space is not necessarily a closed figure - consider a hyperbola formed by a function with two intersecting asymptotes, such as the reciprocal function f(x) = 1/x. The set of hyperbolas contains both closed and open figures.

But the set of squares contains only closed figures, as does the set of circles. Thus, the intersection of those two sets, the set of square circles, contains only closed figures, and therefore a square circle is necessarily a closed figure. Thus, the set of hyperbolas and the set of square circles are not one and the same, and it is a false conclusion to consider that a hyperbola must also be a square circle ;)

As for the symbolic representation, that is no different than the words "square circle".

And...? ;)

[Heartlander]

I foresee a square circle place marker.

Intrinsic:
1. basic and essential: belonging to something as one of the basic and essential elements that make it what it is
2. of itself: by or in itself, rather than because of its associations or consequences
3. ANATOMY found in body part: occurring wholly within or belonging wholly to a part of the body, for example, an organ

Do you two really not understand the point?

[Diamond]

For example, if the mind is reducible to matter (if it is a complex machine), how can we know with certainty whether it is functioning properly? How do I know whether my "machine" is malfunctioning? In fact, how would it be possible to know anything with certainty? If I assert that we can know at least some things with certainty and you assert that we cannot know anything with certainty, and both assertions are equally the products of strictly material processes, from what objective basis can we determine the truth of our contradictary statements?

Great points. I would add that the claim that we can not know anything with certainty is itself a claim of certainty, and therefore self-refuting.

Cordially,

[exmarine]

I do not beleive Jesus was speaking of the entire levitical system in the Matthew passage. For one thing, the blood sacrificial laws were definitely replaced by the new covenant written in blood on that Roman cross. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. That He did. He became the perfect sacrifice, therefore the entire levitical system of using the blood of bulls, goats, etc. was will no longer suffice (it really never did). So, the sacrificial laws are definitely abrogated in Christ Since Christ fulfilled all requirements of the laws dealing with blood sacrifice, they are no longer necessary or recognized by God. This is all explained in the book of Hebrews.

I am no expert, but here is my simplified explanation on the food laws (eating pork): God ordered the Israelites to not eat certain foods because they were "unclean," but since Christ has cleansed all who believe from all uncleanness, no food is thence unclean (as God tells Peter in Acts) - we are all cleansed in Christ. Therefore, the food laws are also unnecessary.

Christians are under Grace and will not be judged by the Law, rather there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus as they are imputed with the righteousness of Christ, i.e. God sees the Christian thru Christ. However, those who do not believe will be judged under the Law and no one stands a chance if judged under the Law - not even you. All are guilty. The only way is to receive Christ, who paid the penalty for all sin, as Savior.