Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
Whatever.
God did say, "you shall not murder," not "you shall not kill." It's the more accurate translation.
Aaaaahhhhh, that's where we're going. Gotcha - it wasn't clear before. If that's the case, then Aquinasfan has a problem because the concept of "squaring a circle" with a compass and straightedge alone makes perfect sense, in terms of plane geometry - it's not possible for us to do it, but it's no longer nonsensical to discuss it. It's a perfectly valid proposition, in that case, and Aquinasfan has to come up with some explanation a bit more substantial than that it just doesn't make sense to discuss, because it does. Even if we can't actually do it.
And it has been mathematically proven that you cannot square a circle with compass and straightedge alone. Since we have to admit that discussing (and refuting) the concept of squaring a circle is eminently possible, you can read a good discussion of the problem and attempts to solve it here.
So now we have to resolve exactly what we mean by "square circle". Does it mean "can we construct a figure that has the properties of both a square and a circle?" as we have been assuming to this point, or does it mean "can a circle be squared using compass and ruler alone?", as Andrew suggests?
But to answer - can God square a circle with a compass and ruler alone? I don't know - maybe. Can he trisect an angle with a compass and straightedge alone? Maybe ;)
I should have known that this was worked out centuries ago by better minds, but sometimes we understand and remember things better when we first try to work through the reasoning ourselves.
The Catholic Encyclopedia on Omnipotence
f.christian (I think that's what his name was), despite his inability to write properly, put across something in his reply to me that I should point out. It doesn’t matter who created the “secular state,” fundamentalists today are trying to de-secularize it. Anything they consider “immoral” they wish to ban, whether it is evolutionary theory, violent video games, Harry Potter books, or homosexual rights, among many other things. Not only that, but they wish to establish what they consider “right” into American culture—prime examples being to force the 10 Commandments into being displayed in public institutions and trying to force “creation science” (which is not science at all) into the classroom. They seem to think that what is good for them must be good for everybody else. In fact, I’m pretty sure that many fundies want all non-theists deported (such was the opinion of several people who wrote letters to the editor to my local paper a few months back). A lot of the things I’ve heard straight from the mouths of fundamentalists seems like shadows of the oppressive Taliban regime—currently nowhere as bad, but could be if left unchecked by separation of church and state. Despite what f.christian thinks, atheists and other non-theists are trying to keep this country secularized. Secularism is by definition “The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.” I also fail to see how evolution has contributed to de-secularization. The only way I see this is that Darwin’s theory has done this indirectly and unwittingly. Fundamentalists who thought the theory was an attack on their belief saw it necessary to stick their noses into what is taught in public schools. So evolution has unwillingly provoked fundamentalists into trying to de-secularize public education. This was of course not Darwin’s intent when he formulated his theory. He was just a simple naturalist who put together a theory based on observation that would give us more understanding of living things than we have ever had and probably ever will.
you get--THINK everything backwards!
Christian protestants created the secular state...athiest--evolutionists have turned it into a cesspool of commhumanism!
You and donh should go out on a blind date---make a nice couple...
square (skwâr) n. 1. A plane figure having four equal sides.Now tell me how a thing can simultaneously be both a square and a circle.cir·cle (sûrkl) n. 1. A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
Your parlor games are getting boring.
The idea is, the mind isn't some separate entity from the brain itself. It's simply what the brain does.Of course not. How would that follow from what I said?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?
The program requires some vessel in order to exist. If it's merely a gleam in a programmer's eye then it still requires a brain. If it's been typed out, it requires a medium in which to be stored. If it's been installed in a computer, then it requires a suitable computer.
But you are talking about an "artificial mind" here - one whose program is being imposed on it from outside. The whole thing about living organisms is, the program is generated internally. Ultimately you could say it was bootstrapped into existence by evolution. I think it's clear that intelligence (or any kind of functional complexity) can be created by 2 methods: From an existing intelligence from without, or by living processes (in the long run by evolution) from within. Method 2 created the living world, and elements of that world used Method 1 to create the artificial world.
So where I suspect you're going with this is really begging the question: Did evolution occur?
I'll try to be more interesting. I could resurrect the red font ;)
In any case, AndrewC suggested that we've been misreading the problem all along. "Squaring the circle" is a geometric problem with a long history, so it seemed plausible that this was what was meant by "square circles". You say we were right in the first place - fair enough.
I'm on my way out the door, but I'll come back to #796 later tonight.
you get--THINK everything backwards!Christian protestants created the secular state...athiest--evolutionists have turned it into a cesspool of commhumanism!
You and donh should go out on a blind date---make a nice couple...
Listen here son. If you want to reply to me, it would do you some good to not desecrate the English languange. Don't bother replying to me unless you can speak properly, understand? Such childishness doesn't go over very well with me. *sigh* Can't I ever get a civilised person who speaks proper English to reply to anything I say in places like this?
Short answer: no.
The problem can be couched in a simple question. Can one construct a line of np[nPI] length using straight edge and compass alone?
|
your report---history would give the belt--decision to a cadaver...
and call the umtouched champ a cheat!
Evolution is politics of socialists...
all about power---unsubstantiated lies...
you swallow whole...hook--line--sinker!
Why are you so locked on to evolution? The genesis of this interchange was morality which led to abstraction through my noting that Rand talked of the metaphysical(Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself) while denying independent "reality" of metaphysical objects(values---Epistemologically, the concept of "value" is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of "life"). Eventually we have settled on the mind, and here you are accusing me of some ulterior attack on evolution. My point has been to establish things that are not physical. You either accept that contention or reject it. Which is it? I have not yet dealt with any requirement for instantiation.
I am saying that geometric figures are not only definable, but that they are rigorously defined. In fact I'll do so right now:
square:= a plane geometric figure composed of four equal length sides and of equal interior angles.
circle:= a plane geometric figure composed of the set of points equidistant from a given point.
I am saying that it is possible to specify a square that is both square and perfectly circular at the same time, using the above definitions. In fact, it is "trivially"* easy to do so.
*"trivial" is clue....
Yes; you've made that assumption, but Mathematics isn't done on assumptions alone; it relies on definitions, axioms, and proven theorems (and a few Postulates, but those are stipulated as being deniable.)
I think your on the right track, though. Examine your premises, Grasshopper...... there might be an exception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.