> > Ron:
> > This is the central disagreement between us, I was
> of the same opinion
> > Until a few months ago when with the help of David
> Buchanan and Dan Glover
> > To name only a few, brought me around to the
> notion that Rocks and computers
> > Actually ARE thoughts. Thoughts of a differing
> nature perhaps, but thoughts
> > None the less. Basic assumptions on which to build
> abstract thinking on.
> > These basic assumptions are formed by social
> interpretation and taken as reality.
Magnus:
> And this view differs from "I think, therefore I am"
> exactly how?
SA: Magnus, I've put it simply for some here, but any
discussion is shrugged away at times. I'm glad to see
your bringing this back. Wouldn't you agree that
static quality can be categorized into 4 levels? One
level is intellectual, another social, biological, and
fourthly inorganic. Sure if we take the assumption
that reality is human based, which also seems to be
happening at times, then reality will only be in
somebodies mind. One can think that way, and people
are not going to change their minds if they don't want
to, but that's not what I'm out for. A rock is a
rock, and its' not in my skull. That's my view.
Ron:
> > What I mean by Objective Assumption" is the
> assumption that thoughts or what we
> > are thinking about is Totally objective, that your
> perception of a rock
> > is what any human being at any point in history
> would perceive as a rock.
> > The term "a rock" has many meanings and forms just
> in one cultural definition...
Magnus:
> Yes, but that difference comes from
> intellectualizing a physical rock into the
> word "rock"...
SA: Ron, I don't think how one interprets a rock can
be argued against. Sure many cultures exist, that's a
given. Yet, once I figure out the word or identity of
any culture's analogy of a rock, I can ask them to
bring me their Aunt Seal and they'll bring me what we
call a sandstone, or maybe they call it a sandstone,
too - but their not going to chop a tree down and give
it to me.
Magnus:
> When our solar system was young, there
> were nobody there to call anything by name. But the
> rocks, stones and dust
> particles went about their business anyway. Obeying
> the rules of level 1 and
> forming the sun and planets we take for granted
> today.
SA: Very good Magnus, you know your basic astronomy.
Now some may point out that their creation story
doesn't involve this early solar system, that's fine
and dandy. Others may point out that they were not
alive during the early solar system, and therefore it
didn't exist - and this is the human centered view of
the universe that I referred to above - and to some
the universe is a highly ego-centered view that only
they themselves, as a specific human being will admit
to knowing if they only experienced it, thus, not
trusting other human views, evidence, or cultural
understandings, whichever way you want to call it.
Many cultures do exist, and we can't forget this
culture's view, specifically the one that involves
astronomy. Once in that worldview, it is to be
understood according to that culture's understanding.
It's putting the mask on of whichever culture you are
trying to know about, learn those cultural ways, and
then you'll be able to discuss how that particular
culture understands their point of view. In the
culture of scientific astronomy, rocks did exist in
the early solar system, billions of years before any
humankind took a step on earth. Depending on how
early one desires to view the solar system, the earth
may not exist yet either.
Thanks.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
