Bear with me Georges - I've just trashed some teaching contracts (standards just too low - not the kids, the institution) and need to pick up some others. I'll get back at the weekend.
On 4 Sep, 09:06, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ye gods, It's asking for comments. > > Somewhat confused, between axiomatics and outdated logic, stuck together > borrowed feathers, > dunked in epiphenomenal thinking. Does not make its terms clear, like > relativistic. Einstein > made errors and the recent emerging overhaul of scientific terms has various > interpretations > because relativity - why a slogging NOUN? - exists but not quite in the sense > of time dilation > Einstein adduced. You have to prove it exists before you can do that. > > NOW Heidegger draws a Distinction between Sein and Dasein, not too well > translated int English. > So allow me. Sein can be taken as being and existence per se, not unlike > Descartes I am, > therefore. In Heidegger it's not logic so much as an existential given to > explore. Being is > complex, as everything seems to have become these days. Dasein is not > existence but more like a > context without which Daein has little enough to get its teeth into. It's not > unlike a no > centred universe. IF, as a thought experience, we donate a particle with > sentience, then in > such a universe the particle can go little further than the "I am" because > there's nothing to > relate to so as to help it make distinctions. It cannot tell whether it moves > or not. Given we > introduce a 2nd particle then between the two neither can tell which is > moving, only that the > distance between is changing. We can increase the number of particles, in a > group or en masse, > which makes no difference only that the distances between may vary. > > transcendentally [ are you relying on here, Georges?] And > non-epiphenomenally a particle may > find, through the intangible 'dark matter' or raw energy and its sentience > that it can push > pull other particles which for certain collections attain a form. That > introduces Dasein. So > unless we further and arbitrarily donate the particle with a sensorium, it > can hardly detect > forms of any kind. So all it will notice then is a kind of action dance it > cannot tell as > distinct from either random or orderly. > > It's like an alien, give it a space craft, hanging from, say, St Peter's > Square watching > people cross it in all directions. Unless the alien donates purpose to those > particle there's > no sense to be made of the action. But in all this the assembly from singular > bits or data of > anything whatsoever cannot proceed without an ontology and complexity, which > can either be too > complex to enumerate, so we can call it random or chaos or simple enough to > enumerate in which > case we can call it order. THEREFORE, to toss around a bundle of attributes > or qualities as you > do Georges, make no sense at all unless you begin at a beginning as a causa > causorum of action. > """Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It > forces us to change our > thinking in order to find it." Niels Bohr > """All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume > behind this force > the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of > all matter. - Max > Planck, > Planck does not make clear how powerful, encompassing or understanding such a > mind is, BUT in > order to account for everything in our Dasein, it either has to originate in > that mind or be > permitted to be created or evolve from whatever crisis in that mind. This > last sentence is the > subject of a great deal of confused theological thinking I won't go into > here. Nor have I gone > into potentials and possibilities as is a recent philosophical fad. That's my > comment aqnd if > you don't like it you may lump it but kindly avoid going into one of your > temper tantrums. It > won't make any impression at all. Children have to discover in their own > right that temper > tantrums can be controlled. Of course I could have poured the cooment into > half a dozen or more > other perspectives. > > adrian. > > > > Georges Metanomski wrote: > > > --- On Thu, 9/4/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:ups.com> > > >> I did look up the brain reference Adrian - but didn't > >> find what I was > >> after. > > =============== > > Hi Neil, > > Have a look at "MIND AND BRAIN" in > >http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_PHENOMENOLOGY/c_mind_and_bra... > > or indirectly: > >http://findgeorges.com/ > > 1 RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENOLOGY > > 1c mind and brain > > I'd appreciate your comments. > > Georges. > > ===============- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
