Nice try, but that doesn't wash.
The angle we are talking about is defined thus--
an·gle2 Pronunciation Key (
ng
g
l)
n.
And not this one --
| an·gle1 Pronunciation Key (nggl) intr.v. an·gled, an·gling, an·gles
|
Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
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.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)
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!
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.
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.
Do you always have your tongue in your cheek?
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.
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.)
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.
Perhaps the best line of the day. Good show.
Nice try, but that doesn't wash.
The angle we are talking about is defined thus--
an·gle2 Pronunciation Key (nggl)
n.
And not this one --
| an·gle1 Pronunciation Key (nggl) intr.v. an·gled, an·gling, an·gles
|
Why do you continue… it is POINT-less!
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.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.
If we all were to wear the same genes it might make our butt look big…
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.