Stephen: 2 corrections and a remark to my own text:
#1: I wrote: "*are those "laws' really so true, or only a (statistical) deduction of data we so far happened to observe?"* I would add: ...and explained according to THAT level of knowldge... #2: I really believ that Descartes 'invented' and 'advertised' his "* dualism"* to keep the soul figment of the faithful in his theory - in order to escape the Inquisition. Spinozza was in a better position: he risked only a 'shunning' from the Jewish community, what he got indeed. About 'life'? biologists like to *"know it"(?)* within their conventional 'model' and the faithful withn their faith. Rosen's *M&R* *(metabolism and repair)* describes the main (biologic) functions of whatever life may be, leaving out the many times mentioned *reproduction*, (a term I deny in most cases: nothing 'reproduces' exactly in a constantly chnging world, only in the restricted views we observe) but the biologic heterosexuals are definitely not reproducing: the offsprings are a melee of daddy an mommy (mixed in DNA etc.) - repro of none. The prokaryotes "reproduce" in mitosis. Even there the environmental changes may interfere: those ancient species did not stay put either. So I 'generalize' *l i f e* into changes including retrospective occurrences of parts in the continuing complexity line, called reproduction. (*Consciousness*, as I tried to describe many times, is in its present formulation of mine: *Response to* *relations*.) *((Relations*, however, is hard to identify, it may be much mopre than we think about now. It is the 'cement' of the infinite complexity from which our (and other) universe(s) broke off for a timeless re-dissipation.)) Respectfully John On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > On 8/29/2011 6:05 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > Stephen and Jason, > interesting discours, but you use concepts that beg for my questioning. > Dualism may be an observation based on phenomena we misunderstand and > explain to the level of "present" theories. A violation of the laws of > physics asks: are those "laws' really so true, or only a (statistical) > deduction of data we so far happened to observe? and that "substance monism" > (whatever it includes) is bound to the questionable term of "life". > Substance ( I go with Stephen) may be an illusion, depending how we define > an illusion. > Don't bother, I speak only my agnostic worldview, but it may be a different > point of view to add. > John M > > > Hi John, > > Exactly. > > Onward! > > Stephen > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Stephen P. King > <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > >> On 8/28/2011 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> Capillary action is not a violation of the laws of physics. What about >>> substance monism precludes any life form from existing? >>> >>> Also are you saying you are a substance dualist? >>> >> >> Hi, >> >> Is 'substance dualism' the only form of dualism? Maybe you might >> consider that the idea of substance is simply not even wrong. Matter and >> Mind are both process, substance is just the relative invariant aspects of >> such. Substance is illusion. >> >> Onward! >> >> Stephen >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
