See below.

On Aug 11, 7:48 am, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf)
> I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in'
> and want to redirect my previous post.
>
> Please: put "GOD" into the first part of my post, instead of "BEAUTY"
> - then think it over again with your similarly changed reply.
> BTW: I am not an atheist: an atheist requires for a denial (at least your
> 'concept' of) 'a' God what I do not find reasonable for/in my thinking.
> So I cannot deny it. I follow "MY" reason in "MY" common sense.  -
>

OK:
> > > > And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) GOD without
> > > > function(ality)?
> > > > *
>
> > > This question is asking, in terms of functionality, using the
> > > functionality word "how", "how" would I sense/acknowledge
> > > (functionally) a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing (like
> > > GOD).  I agree that any answer to this would be nonsensical.  (I
> > > think this is why quantum mechanics is nonsensical.)  But this does
> > > not imply that beauty is not primary.  (And by the way I am not saying
> > > that there is no relationship between beauty and functionality.)

Yes.  This is basically, IMO, saying the same thing as before.  Note
that I had put "beauty" in parantheses as one example of a
hypothetically fundamental/primary thing, but GOD would be another
example, perhaps Hilbert-space, numbers, Fisher information,
plenitude, Tegmarks levels, are other examples.  I should be clear
that just because I acknowledge the nonsensicalness of describing the
function of sensing a fundamental/primary thing directly, I still
maintain that it can be sensed.  Your following statement describes
this situation:

> ...BTW the
> effects reaching an item in a model are NOT restricted to the
> model-boundaries which causes problems in the  model-based  sciences.

i.e. to rephrase my previous sentence, just because we cannot describe
something in terms of a model does not mean that the thing does not
exist and that it does not have a detectable effect on us.

>"Accordingly (I consider) Occam's razor-cut as an increase in the reductionist 
>view of the
> models. The new way of thinking I *seek* goes the opposite way."
>

Perhaps this is the same thing as the "head vs. heart" reversal.  The
traditional (reductionist) way of describing the process of truly
understanding/recognizing truth goes like this:  It starts with our
head (being able to reduce something to a controllable manageable
"understandable" subset or form), but then in order to truly know a
truth (and "know that we know"), it has to travel the infinitely long
18 inches from our head to our heart.  Since the controllable realm
seems to reside solely within our "head", then getting the truth
through this 18 inches seems to be an impossible task.  Perhaps this
is where the various forms of religion come in, helping us to "do" the
impossible.

In contrast, I agree with you that in reality truth goes "the opposite
way", in my words from our heart to our head.  "God has set eternity
in our hearts" (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and we merely "RE--cogn-ize" it.
(I might add that the head first approach could be categorized as the
Greek view, and the heart first approach could be categorized as the
Hebrew view.)

Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to