Le 29-juil.-05, à 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and
Colin:
If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly
than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary,
but they cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems as
nonsensical to call a movement true as a flavour purple or a sound
avaricious. But what is obvious when thought is said to be a certain
bodily movement seems equally to follow from its being the effect of
one. Thought called knowledge and thought called error are both
necessary results of states of brain. These states are necessary
results of other bodily states. All the bodily states are equally
real, and so are the different thoughts; but by what right can I hold
that my thought is knowledge of what is real in bodies? For to hold so
is but another thought, an effect of real bodily movements like the
rest. . . These arguments, however, of mine, if the principles of
scientific [naturalism]... are to stand unchallenged, are themselves
no more than happenings in a mind, results of bodily movements; that
you or I think them sound, or think them unsound, is but another such
happening; that we think them no more than another such happening is
itself but yet another such. And it may be said of any ground on which
we may attempt to stand as true, Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis
aevum ["It flows and will flow swirling on forever" (Horace, Epistles,
I, 2, 43)]. (H. W. B. Joseph, Some Problems in Ethics (Oxford
University Press, 1931), pp. 14-15)
I am not sure I follow that (very well written) statements. It is a
little bit wrong like the argument of those who use determinism against
free will. By looking at yourself at some low level it *looks* there is
no sense, but this just shows that from your personal point of view you
are not "living" at that level. You take the risk at dismissing all
theories by pointing that they are all produce by .... and then you are
using a theory for describing some level.
The fact that Schroedinger was obeying to its one wave equation cannot
be used to invalidate it!
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
