At 09:31 AM 3/12/2009, you wrote:
Marsha:
First I was stunned at your use of "I think" to explain your
scientific point-of-view, next shocked, now amused at how wise Lila
was in Chapter 14. For you and Science it is 'I think' all the way
down, analogues, conceptual constructs (or turtles). What is any
interpretation given to percepts except repetition of 'I thinks'?
"...I'm whatever your questions turn me into. You don't see that.
It's your questions that make me who I am. If you think I'm an angel
then that's what I am. If you think I'm a whore then that's what I
am. I'm whatever you think. And if you change your mind about me then
I change too. So whatever Richard tells you, it's true. There's no
way he can lie about me."
Well, maybe, shatter they do. ???
[Krimel]
This, and your ongoing mantra about killing ALL conceptual patterns are
simply absurd. You rendering all communication as meaningless as bird song.
You would reduce us all to grunting our emotions without reflection. Nature
has bestowed upon us the gift of finding meaning. She gives us the tools to
share that meaning with each other. You would throw it back in her face,
content with a head full of immediate sense impressions, heedless of the
past and unconcerned about the future. It's like you are claiming that the
ultimate state of being would be a persistent vegetative state.
That seems to be YOUR conception of the world, all that way down. It seems
to me if ever a concept deserved a bullet to the head, your concept would be
the one.
Krimel,
This is how you address my post, by accusation, by moving the onus?
If it comes to deciding on something based on chicken entrails,
theological sermon, experimentation or your thinking, I'll choose
experimentation, but that would be experimentation, even scientific
experimentation, considered with a certain amount of skepticism and
epistemological humility both which seem to go missing when you speak
of Science.
I was asking you about the relationship between thought and brain
activity, whether the relationship was causal or a correlation. I
was asking you about the brain science you often suggest your
knowledge reflects. You gave some examples of why, you thought, it
was an obvious and indisputable correlation. Then you seemed to say
the relationship was causal based on 'I personally believe' and 'I
think'. Do you blame me for being stunned?
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
