Hi guys,

Regarding Descartes.....

There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear
because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth comes in 
only one form,
either in science or in the Bible. 

But IMHO this is a woefully confused debate on both sides, because the Bible is 
not a science textbook,
it is a manual of spiritual and moral practice. IMHO early genesis is a 
spiritual allegory,
not a textbook on cosmology.  It was written not for scientists, for scientists 
not have any concept of meaning, but a spiritual manual for the children of God.

By allegory I don't mean that the Bible is fiction, for higher truths cannot be 
conveyed very well in scientific language,
they are better suited to poetry and allegory.  And science cannot convey 
meaning at all. Meaning can only
be conveyed in story form. Not that the story is false, but that meaning 
requires a story form.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-15, 12:09:45
Subject: Re: Misusing Descartes' model

On 8/15/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Aug 2012, at 19:14, Roger wrote:

Hi Jason Resch 
You got it right. Descartes never troubled to explain how two completely 
different substances--
mind and body-- could interact. And Leibniz was too hard to understand.
And it was also easy to follow Newton, because?odies acted "as if" they 
transferred energy or momentum.
In Descartes' model, God was external to the mind/body issue, being essentially 
left out.

Not in the meditation. God is needed, actually the goodness of God is needed to 
avoid the dream argument consequence. When you feel something real, it is real, 
because God will not lie to you, basically. I don't follow Descartes, on this, 
but his text "In search of the truth" makes me think that Descartes was himself 
not quite glad with this.

Dear Bruno and Roger,

?? We can avoid the intentionally not a liar question by noticing that a 
physical world requires incontrovertibly (no contradictions) so that there 
could be persistent objects. My conjecture is that this obtain automatically if 
all interactions require a "floor" or level where all statements that might be 
communicated are representable by a Boolean algebra. I suspect that the 
"substitution level" of COMP is a version of this idea.

So using the Descartes model, God (or some Cosmic Mind), who actually did these 
could be left out of the universe. And mind was then treated as material.
At the time of Descartes and Leibniz, there was a fork in the
road, and science took the more convenient path of Newton and Descartes 
which works quite well if you gloss over the unsolved mind/body problem ---
until you look for a self or a God or a Cosmic Mind. Not there, as in Dennet's 
No wonder scientists are mostly atheists, since God doesn't fit into their 
of the universe. While in Leibniz, God is necessary. for the universe

In my opinion, Descartes too, but was perhaps willingly unclear to avoid 
problems with the authorities.

?? Many writers in that epoch had to moderate their words, especially given the 
example that was made of Giordano Bruno.



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to