Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Metaphysics Message-ID: <1410@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 13:25:25 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1410 Posted: Sat Aug 3 13:25:25 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 09:16:03 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <368@spar.UUCP> <1148@pyuxd.UUCP> <405@spar.UUCP> <1248@pyuxd.UUCP> <436@spar.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 123 Keywords: quid est Xref: watmath net.origins:2033 net.religion:7326 net.philosophy:2189 Watch this, this is interesting. | > >>> [Rich Rosen] >> >>>> [me] | | >>>> Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential | >>>> truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only | >>>> it was dormant -- exactly like a seed.... | | >You miss the point. I was saying that the position above only has meaning if | >you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity. | | Then you are saying that the existence of a seed-like proto-universe | would imply a Creator? Wait a minute. Take a '>>>>' quote from you, then take a '>' quote from me that wasn't in response to the '>>>>' quote, and then twist again, like we did last summer? What the hell is going on? >>I just love the way some people choose to divide the world arbitrarily into >>these physical and non-physical categories based solely on their limits of >>observation, and then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) into examining >>only the "physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" ideas should be >>free of the shackles of science, which really means "let's not examine these >>things rigorously because such thinking might debunk these notions >>the way they got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago". > What notions? What pet theories? Who said science should be shackled? YOU did, by insisting that certain things are "not in the realm" of science, BECAUSE they have names like "non-physical", "souls", etc. (Really putting the cart before the horse: making claims about aspects of the universe as being definitively beyond science so that one can then say science can't investigate them, which really simply means that they should not be subject to serious (scientific) inquiry.) >>And then they use deceptive debasing terminology to describe science like >>"it's soulless". > Uncle! I take it back! Science has a Soul, as you wish. > I am sorry to have offended you. I was mistaken. If you want to play manipulative emotional games with words, do it on your own time. You talk about things that have a soul, eh? Show me something that DOES, definitively, so that science by comparison can be soulless. >>What is it that you have against rigorous objectified >>examination using verifiable evidence? That's all the heinous science is >>after all. > I am very fond of `rigorous objectified examination'. Except, apparently, when it comes to "souls" and such. After all "soulless" science should stay away from examining things to DO relate to souls, shouldn't it? >>Why should such examination have "limits"? > The limits are intrinsic and not externally imposed. What are they? And why don't they apply to "certain things"? > That means it is unable to do certain things, just as a blind person > cannot see. For example, I would not judge the merits of a musical > composition using the scientific method. But you could examine what aspects of a piece MAKE it a "good" piece in a very scientific way. >>Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception, >>presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't >>worthwhile evidence. > I do not agree. Oh. I see. Thank you for clarifying that with such powerful reasoning. :-? > Suppose I wish to determine whether I like a musical composition. > I listen to it. If it pleases me, I take that as evidence that I > like it. Just because YOU cannot determine the factors that contribute to your liking or not liking a piece of music doesn't mean that those factors do not exist. They are simply beyond your scope because you choose not to think about them in the way. > Or suppose I experience the sensation I refer to as `love' whenever a > certain person enters my dreams, thoughts, or physical presence. I take > that as evidence that I love them. I also take that as evidence for > the existence of love, in fact. Same thing. Why one set of reactions for one person and another for another? Because of those same sorts of factors. It all has a very real basis, though you may choose to avoid it. > That is perfectly valid evidence, as far as I can tell. Well, since "love" is a word to describe what happens when all those factors come together, it "exists". But, alas, you don't care about what got it to be that way. >>> Most people attribute existence to at least a few kinds of nonobjective >>> things -- like beauty, meaning, awareness, causality, science, >>> schroedinger probability waves, probably `physical objects', and maybe >>> music, time, space... Clearly SOME meaningful things exist that have >>> little or no objective existence whatsoever. >>We're talking about constructs and patterns designed by the mind to REPRESENT >>reality, not reality. > Do you claim to know what reality IS? No, you do. Funny, though, what your basis for such knowledge is. And what does it have to do with the point I made above. > If you know how to tell which are more real than others, please > enlighten us, my friend. I thought I just did, and I didn't think it was very "enlightening", I thought it was pretty straightforward. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr