Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
I saw Stephen Jay Gould talk a couple of years ago.
His talk showed an amazing insight about the difference between the physical sciences with the power of prediction (Newton's 2nd law and Law of Gravitation) -- and the historical sciences of paleontology, geology and cosmology (which often deal with unique events in the past, and don't have predictive power).
He will be missed. See the "Skeptic" column in June Scientific American, where he is praised for his explanations of science (written well before his death).
-- Andy Griffith
They look the same to me too, but they're different codes.
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?
I’m sorry, are you still rambling?
It’s like a joke that has been taken too far – it’s kinda’ funny at first but after a while it’s just sad.
Actually I don't think you ever mentioned Rand, but no matter...
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.
OK. Do you understand that Rand's thinking (and mine in this case) is very dialectic, in the classical sense? (See Merriam Webster's definition #5a: 5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas)
Rand & I are arguing against metaphysical dualism. The non-physical is not fundamentally opposed to the physical. Descartes was wrong: The "soul" is not some kind of supernatural organ that's attached to the brain via the pineal gland. :-) But the subtler forms of that kind of thinking are also wrongheaded.
Here's an interesting history of the mind-body dilemma. I guess my view is closest to that of Lewes in the article's 19th Century section:
Dual-aspect monism was the brain child of George Henry Lewes (1817- 1878). Born in London, Lewes was one of the most versatile and brilliant minds of the century. A writer, actor, biologist, philosopher, and psychologist, his interests ranged across a staggering array of topics. He was the author of a still widely read Biographical History of Philosophy (1845/1846). His Physiology of Common Life (1859/1860) converted the young Pavlov to the study of physiology, and his five-volume Problems of Life and Mind (1874/1879) constituted a major contribution to the psychology of the period.
In The Physical Basis of Mind [10], which forms the third volume of Problems of Life and Mind, Lewes articulated the classic modern formulation of double aspect theory, dual-aspect monism. In presenting his position, Lewes went well beyond the theories of his predecessors, supplementing the double aspect notion with a view that has come to be called neutral monism. Neutral monism involves the claim that there is only one kind of "stuff" and that mind and body differ only in the arrangement of that stuff or in the perspective from which it is apprehended.
Borrowing a metaphor from Fechner, Lewes characterized the relation of mind to body as a curve that maintains its identity as a single line even though characterized at every point by both concavity and convexity. Mental and physical processes, in other words, are simply different aspects of one and the same series of psychophysical events. When seen from the subjective point of view (e.g., when someone is thinking), the psychophysical series is mental; when seen from the objective point of view (e.g., when someone observes what is going on in the thinking person's brain), it is physical.
In the argument for the dual-aspect view, however, Lewes's innovation was by no means restricted to his neutral monism. Mental and physical descriptions, he went on to assert, employ terms which are not intertranslatable. The visual experience of a large elephant can not be adequately described through statements that characterize either the laws of light or the mechanisms of the nervous system. Mental terms, in other words, cannot in principle be replaced by physical terms. In making this claim, Lewes transferred the domain of discourse from metaphysics to language and provided what is still the best argument against extreme reductionism and the replacement of psychology by physiology.
I don't know if "mental terms cannot in principle be replaced by physical terms", but in practice it makes much more sense to deal with the two phenomena on their own terms. And yet it's intuitively obvious that they're two sides of the same coin.
Does this help, or have I gone off on a tangent again?
Slimer.
;-)
Yes; I'm serious. In what way did my example deviate from your "perfect" circle? It fits the definition for a circle, yes?
But that’s still not the point, I defined intrinsic for you and cited examples: “Do you stick square pegs in round holes? Drive on square tires or triangular tires? I guess you are one of those guys that I’ve heard about that actually believes the earth is square.”
But you pick and chose what you want and then add to it, much like those who try to prove evolution. It is appropriate that the word that was added is “degenerated”.
And this has what to do with the Mathematical issue of whether or not a square could be perfectly circular and still be square? Nothing. Which is why I ignored it.
It seems this argument has gone full ‘circle’. (or is it square) Methinks ‘you are’ a weasel.
Well, then it should be a simple matter for you to point out how my example conflicts with either the definition for a square or a circle.
I await your refutation, or your stipulation that there does exist a square that is also a circle.
That's the spirit!
Ahem, belief is required. He lacked that. In fact he went out of his way to discredit God. I believe he does know the truth now, but it's too late. Peace and mercy? Doubtful. The Bible says otherwise for disbelievers who chose disbelief.
Better take a course in logic. Denying God's creation is disbelief. The evidence of His involvement is ALL around us - seen and unseen. Either you believe He created it or you don't. Gould in particular, willingly stated he was an atheist, hence, no "intellignent Design" or "Supreme Being" . You just can't have it both ways. It is all or nothing.
Better take a course in logic. Denying God's creation is disbelief. The evidence of His involvement is ALL around us - seen and unseen. Either you believe He created it or you don't. Gould in particular, willingly stated he was an atheist, hence, no "intellignent Design" or "Supreme Being" . You just can't have it both ways. It is all or nothing.
BTW the Greek and Hebrew when translated properly state clearly that God created the earth and all its inhabitants in SEVEN days that are 24 hours long. Evolution is not a possibility according to the Word of God.
And this has what to do with the Mathematical issue of whether or not a square could be perfectly circular and still be square? Nothing. Which is why I ignored it.
It has everything to do with the issue:
“ 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.”
Tell you what, you live on your square earth that you imagine in your square little head, and I’ll live here in a place I like to call reality. I’ll sent you a post from time to time.
You argue that from a degenerative point, there is no true shape. You are arguing that there is no truth. Take your perfect circle and convince a jury that it is a square and then a circle again. Take black and try to prove it’s white and then tell them it’s black again. Take stupidity and prove it to be intelligence and then back to stupidity…
Tell a cop next time you get pulled over that your square tires have been causing you problems and that the red light was actually green.
Intrinsic:
I await more of your obtuseness
You do realize that you are arguing a square is actually circle – equal to? And you criticize me for disagreeing?
This just drips square drops of irony!
Considering the first two chapters in Genesis to be alegorical does not imply disbelief in the Almighty. You seem to be drawing conclusions without any evidence, Sherlock.
What got created on the 7th day?
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.