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 manifestations. 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, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
