Hi Roger,

Hear Hear! Peirce is the best to see the basic ideas and hints on how to extend them. ;-)


On 9/13/2012 6:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Exactly.
The raw perception is also what Peirce calls Firstness.
Secondness is consciousness or internal reflection by mind to "make sense" of the perception
    in terms of what we know.
Then Thirdness should be the recognition or naming of that image.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
9/13/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."

    ----- Receiving the following content -----
    *From:* Alberto G. Corona <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-09-12, 09:25:00
    *Subject:* Re: Re: victims of faith

    But unextended objects according with S. T. Aquinas exist in our
    mind and are reasonable, that is they are absent from
    contradictions, that is according with the facts of reality, which
    for Aquinas is part of the Revelation, which has two sides: the
    Natural Revelation ( The creation: Nature) and the Written
    Revelation: The bible

    Many facts of Natural Revelation suggest that the Creator proceed
    by evolution, by a complex process called popularly "natural
    selection", and NS have rules that affect how behaviours and
    mental process work in humans and other animals (according with
    Aquinas, men and animals share the animal substance).  NS assures
    that what we perceive is "in relation" a external physical
    reality, but it is NOT the external physical reality.

    In other words, the architecture of the mind, and the concepts
    that we manage are created to deal with the phisical reality
    trough our mental image of reality that the mind produces. We can
    not access the "physical reality" directly. Therefore every object
    is first and foremost, mental, included the extensional objects.
    The reality is therefore, mental. Therefore, any definition of
    Existence and Truth is  in terms of mental categories. So both
    extensional and unextensional objects are subject of study of a
    science of the mind under the hypothesis that the mind and the
    external reality have such relation that I expressed, given the
    facts that Natural Revelation show to science, And  the fact that
    according with Aquinas, God is perfect and because it is a perfect
    being could not falll in irrationalities nor in breakings of
    cause-effect. Therefore an evolutionary study of religion is a
    legitimate part of Natural Theology.

    2012/9/12 Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net
    <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>>

        Hi Alberto G. Corona
         
        Scientific truth is truth about extended (physical) objects
         
        Religious or humanistic truth is truth about inextended
        (nonphysical) objects.
         
        Period.
         
        Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
        9/12/2012
        Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
        so that everything could function."

            ----- Receiving the following content -----
            *From:* Alberto G. Corona <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>
            *Receiver:* everything-list
            <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
            *Time:* 2012-09-12, 07:22:14
            *Subject:* Re: victims of faith

            Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that
            arises from a evolutionarily-informed theory of biology
            psichology and sociology (sociobiology) is very simple:
            True and existent is whatever that make individuals and
            groups to be successful. Men and women "exist in reality"
            as objects of perception because these objects and their
            behaviours have a big importance for our survival, so we
            have specialized circuits for perceiving and thinking
            about them. The more circuits for processing something,
            the more true and "existent in reality" is.

            My social capital psychology theory postulates that we
            have a way to assess, in advance, how good the
            consequences of an idea are for us and for our group.
            燭his instinctive evaluation determines if an idea is good
            and therefore, if it is true(given the above). This
            evaluation of an idea depend o its intrinsic explanatory
            power, but also in how this idea make our 爂roup strong
            and coordinated in relation with others. This applies to
            any kind of idea: scientific, religious or whatever.

            Both factors, explanatory power and social capital
            potential may collide, but by far the social capital
            component is the most important in human life. We do not
            spent much time discussing about the spin of the electron,
            because the explanatory power is easy to assess. But we
            make wars when there is a collision of ideas with social
            capital implied like "all men are equal under the law, the
            individual has the right to seek happiness for himself"
            and "another world of equality and happiness is possible
            if we remove the social obstacles for human development"

            燝ood and Truth is the same in many phylosophical systems.
            A group and its associated beliefs works as an insurance
            company. In essence the rational risk analysis of a client
            before signing a contract with an insurance company is
            similar to the evaluation of the beliefs of a group燼
            lthough in this case it is unconscious and produces
            sentiments of conversion, goodness and truthfulness.



            2012/9/12 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com
            <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>>

                There is no difference at all between religious
                mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form,
                example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion
                is a label that appears when the爉ith爄s old enough it
                has enough believers and the object of mitification is
                far away in time.

                People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded
                beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the
                belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that
                they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of
                beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social
                life. 營 think that my theory of social capital,
                mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and
                truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a
                factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of
                the mind, which is the only world accesible to us.


                2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com
                <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>>

                    On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G.
                    Corona <agocor...@gmail.com
                    <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
                    > every statement about 爓hatever, included
                    "reality" is made with mental
                    > concepts . 燭he definition of truth, reality ,
                    factual, religion, depend on
                    > axioms or unproved statements. I presented a
                    computational-evolutionary,
                    > falsable, exposition of what religion is: 燼
                    part of a wider class of
                    > phenomenons of "reality construction" and I
                    demonstrated IHMO that no man is
                    > free from it.

                    Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis,
                    do occur in other
                    facets of life, such as politics and even science.
                    But what is unique
                    about religion is that its proponents make factual
                    statements which
                    they proudly profess to believe in the absence of
                    any supporting
                    evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for
                    bizarre beliefs
                    different to their own without any apparent
                    awareness of the
                    inconsistency.


                    --
                    Stathis Papaioannou


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
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.

Reply via email to