Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3

See source for details....


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960961-966 next last
To: general_re
By the way, 999 is the area code for the Seventh Planet (the name of which cannot be spoken), so if you really want to claim it as your own, it's all yours.
921 posted on 05/24/2002 12:45:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

This is illustrated with the metaphor ---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.

However, there is a big problem here. I know of no other measurement that measures itself. So what we have here is something quite different from the line metaphor. As a "measurement" the mind is quite distinct from any other measure of matter.(if one asserts that it is a "measurement" of matter)

I don't really understand his analogy of the curve. Here's a better one, IMO: If you take a large computer program & analyze its high level source code, you can understand one aspect of its operation. But you can also examine the assembler code the compiler creates, and you can also examine the machine codes it creates, and you could also trace the electrical signals as they wind their way thru all the logic gates in the CPU & other chips.

If you examine it on the level of hardware, you can understand it on that level, but you won't have any idea what the high-level program is trying to do. It's just not the appropriate level at which to understand it. If the computer is hooked up to a robot arm whose hand suddenly pulls out its own power cord, you won't understand why it happened in any meaningful way by examining the electronic pulses!

922 posted on 05/24/2002 1:01:32 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Ah, well - who knew? I rarely have occasion to speak to Planet Seven, so I fear that it would be of limited usefulness to me...
923 posted on 05/24/2002 1:30:03 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
If the computer is hooked up to a robot arm whose hand suddenly pulls out its own power cord, you won't understand why it happened in any meaningful way by examining the electronic pulses!

Not of necessity, but you are still missing the point without realizing it. You used "why", which is a mind thing, instead of "how" which is a physical thing.

924 posted on 05/24/2002 1:30:59 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Not of necessity, but you are still missing the point without realizing it. You used "why", which is a mind thing, instead of "how" which is a physical thing.

No - when examining a higher-order phenomenon that includes apparent thought behind a physical action, "why" is the appropriate question to ask instead of "how". That's the whole point.

925 posted on 05/24/2002 1:50:33 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
That's the whole point.

Yes, but it is only a mind that can measure that, since it is completely abstract. You are admitting that a thought cannot be explained by the physical forces present "you won't understand why it happened in any meaningful way by examining the electronic pulses". You are agreeing with me.

926 posted on 05/24/2002 2:05:14 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I don't know why you would think I am interested in such a thing. It's not like I'm going to flood the thread just to increase my chances of doing such a thing...

Do you always have your tongue in your cheek?

927 posted on 05/24/2002 3:21:19 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Am I? Well, OK, if you say so. (Still not sure where you were going with this. Should I be alarmed? =:-)
928 posted on 05/24/2002 3:36:37 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
(Still not sure where you were going with this. Should I be alarmed? =:-)

Either you are not smiling or your parentheses are unbalanced.

No, you shouldn't be alarmed. After all, what can glowing rare-earth phosphors do?

Have we established your answer to the question in my post 818 referenced here? ----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.

You apparently accept the not physical nature of "why". If that is the case, then what remains to be addressed are the requirements for its instantiation.

929 posted on 05/24/2002 4:01:03 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
A point has no angles. What geometry are you talking about?

Why, the angle formed by the four zero-length sides of my square, of course. (I could, for example, define them in terms of unit vectors, with zero length, and the scalar product of adjacent zero-length sides is zero; hence the sides are orthogonal.)

930 posted on 05/24/2002 4:38:05 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Draw your ‘one’ wonder object and then tell me why it is a circle, square, triangle, polygon, etc…

No need to draw anything (besides, in Math, drawings aren't proof.)

I've already pointed out that my degenerate square/circle satisfies the definitions previously provided. That's why it's a square,.... and a circle.

The disproof of my assertion would be to show how my degenerate square/circle violates the definitions. But there's no way to do it, because the definitions do NOT prohibit zero-length sides/radii.

931 posted on 05/24/2002 4:43:51 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The sun sets on the tree, thus casting a longshadow.
932 posted on 05/24/2002 4:45:20 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
It has degenerated I regret to say…

Perhaps the best line of the day. Good show.

933 posted on 05/24/2002 4:45:58 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Why, the angle formed by the four zero-length sides of my square, of course.

Nice try, but that doesn't wash.

The angle we are talking about is defined thus--

an·gle2   Pronunciation Key  (nggl)
n.

  1. Mathematics.
    1. The figure formed by two lines diverging from a common point.

And not this one --


an·gle1   Pronunciation Key  (nggl)
intr.v. an·gled, an·gling, an·gles
  1. To fish with a hook and line.
  2. To try to get something by indirect or artful means: angle for a promotion

934 posted on 05/24/2002 4:47:27 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Does your square have a radius? Does your circle have four equal sides?

Why do you continue… it is POINT-less!

935 posted on 05/24/2002 4:48:05 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Maybe the point is supposed to be a metaphor for a fertilized egg. Unless we read the DNA of the egg we have no way of knowing what it is going to differentiate itself to become. In the same way, unless we read the equation of the geometric shape, we have no way of knowing whether the point is going to grow up to be a baby circle or a baby square. Until then it's just a point.
936 posted on 05/24/2002 4:59:21 PM PDT by ganesha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Have we established your answer to the question in my post 818 referenced here? ----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.

You apparently accept the not physical nature of "why". If that is the case, then what remains to be addressed are the requirements for its instantiation.

It's not physical in a simple sense, yet it is in that it takes a physical person to form the question "why" in the first place. So I treat the distinction as moot.
937 posted on 05/24/2002 5:03:20 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: ganesha
But they cannot be the 'same' point, seed, egg, etc…

If we all were to wear the same genes it might make our butt look big…

938 posted on 05/24/2002 5:08:11 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 936 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Degenerate geometry placemarker.
939 posted on 05/24/2002 6:07:21 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 938 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
OK. So?
940 posted on 05/24/2002 7:06:43 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960961-966 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson