Stathis, you put me on the spot (as Brent did, to whom I still owe a reply).
I have NO theory. I started to speculate about things I never had the time
to read a bout, keep pace with novelties, or even contemplate while I was
busy as the nonexistent hell in my
day-to day &D and consulting workload.
I read some 2-300 NEW books o n new worldview-related topics, starting as
probably the oldest one: David Bohm. Then I argued (neophyte hassle) with
physicists and conservative neuro-philosophers and wrote a sci-fi.
I concluded in an unlimited complexity of everything existing (another
questionmark, since I was not on the basis of the physical measurements) of
which human thinking formulates topics, maps, territories (=models, within
boundaries) and we have a 'science' closed into our models.
So I formulated a NARRATIVE for myself. (Plenitude etc.)
This (answering your question: "
"...how it could be immune to being proved wrong?"
makes me immune as it is MY narrative. You don't like it? fine. It gives me
easier explanations in MY (common sense) logic to many (not all) questions.
Primitive? of course.
Are we not all?
I found similar thinkers (different theories and bases) galore
and have interesting discussions on - I think - 8 lists.
Counterarguments help me develop my ideas. The only one I stick to is the
total interconnectedness and intereffectiveness in the totality irrespective
topics we identify. Complexity exceeds the systems. We are complexity of not
separable mind (what is it?) and body (our historical figment of matter,
just explaining phenomena in the evolving empirical enrichment).
None exists without the other.
I better stop because I could not hold water in a detailed wide discussion
against all that knowledge stuffed in this list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
Perhaps I have misunderstood if you were presenting an alternative theory:
it's easy to misunderstand the often complex ideas discussed on this list.
you explain your theory, and how it could be immune to being proved wrong?
> you (of all people) underestimate human optimism and self confidence. "MY
> THEORY"? the 'others' maybe, they become proven wrong and false, not mine!
> Then again where is an acceptable evidence? to whom?
> Ask Goedel, ask Popper, ask all people who 'think' differently.
> Bruno has different evidence for his position in his reply to my question
> today than I had when I asked it.
> Not even a (confirmed?) "Pysical"experiment is 'evidendce'. wHO do you
> a 'scientist'? the one who accepts an evidence, or who does not?
> Best wishes
> John M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "John M" <email@example.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM
> Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
> John M writes:
> > Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a
> > steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle.
> > The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice.
> Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with
> best theory consistent with the evidence, with a willingness to revise the
> in the light of new evidence. They might not be quite as willing as they
> should be, but that's just human nature, and they all come around to doing
> right thing eventually. It would not be very helpful if we all thought, "I
> know that
> whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given
> time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all."
> Stathis Papaioannou
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at