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
> 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
> 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
If Mechanism is true, then Reductionism is false.
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