On 12 Feb 2009, at 18:05, Tom Caylor wrote:

> Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the
> publication of "On the Origin of Species", and we Americans at least
> are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
> Perhaps at this milestone it would be good to bring up the question,
> What bearing does Darwin's legacy have on the topic here on the
> Everything List?  Of course that begs the question, What is Darwin's
> legacy?
> Yesterday I heard an interview on the radio regarding the many faces
> of Lincoln, that there have been many interpretations of Lincoln's
> life and accomplishments, and his legacy.  I think the same is true of
> Darwin.
> One difference that I have observed, to put it in words sometimes used
> on this List, is in whether or not the first person experience is
> accepted as a reality that cannot be reduced to a third person view.
> Perhaps on the "no first/third person disctinction" side of this fence
> is Dennet, as in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he maintains
> that the whole process of evolution, and in fact all of reality, can
> be reduced to an algorithm.  On the other side of the fence might be
> Gould, or the biologist Carl Woese, as in his paper "A New Biology for
> a New Century".  Another way to state this difference is to say that
> the mind/body problem is is/is not solvable.  If it is, then perhaps
> reductionism is valid, and this would shed a different light on the
> Everything problem.  It it is not, this would shed a different light
> on the whole thing.
> Any thoughts on this deep and wide arena?
> P.S. I'm hoping this doesn't start a rant against anti-science views,
> of which I am not a holder.  There is something far deeper going on
> here.

If Mechanism is true, then Reductionism is false.

More precisely:

If reductionism is locally true about body and bodies, then  
reductionism is false on reality and realities, be it mind or material  

 From inside: local reductionism entails global non-reductionism.
 From outside: global reductionism entails local non-reductionism.

In any case, reductionism is false. There is no reductionist theory of  
the universal machine.

I would say,



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to