Sure, as soon as you provide the evidence for your statement. I've never insinuated there is no such thing as evidence.
On Jun 13, 2011, at 11:38 PM, X Acto wrote: > provide evidence of that > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 11:26:11 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] cloud of probability > > > Marsha: > > And you seem to have the point of view that something > generalized is true. > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2011, at 9:33 PM, X Acto wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 2:15:42 PM >> Subject: Re: [MD] cloud of probability >> >> >> >> Marsha: >> >> And I am still waiting for the evidence for the quote you attributed to me >> as >> part of the >> contradiction. >> >> >> Ron: >> Interesting comment considering that you seem to have the point of view that >> there >> is no such thing as "evidence". >> >> >> >> ,, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:28 PM, david buchanan wrote: >> >>> >>> dmb said: >>> ..."Gravity" is a physical concept, a word with specific meanings. It is >>> NOT an >>> >>> ineffable mystical reality. >>> >>> >>> John wonders what a physical concept looks like: >>> Is it a concept composed of physical attributes? I thought it was just an >>> idea >>> >>> - something in a mind. How can a concept be physical? >>> >>> dmb: >>> Think about the fact that Newton and Einstein were mentioned in the context >>> of >> >>> saying "gravity" is a physical concept. >>> >>> It is dawning on you yet? Newton and Einstein are famous for being >>> ________? >>> No? Still don't have it? Okay, instead of fill-in-the-blank, how about >>> multiple >>> >>> choice? >>> Newton and Einstein are famous for >>> A) messy hair >>> B) bad manners >>> C) Physics >>> No? You still don't see what a "physical" concept is? >>> Okay, I'll just tell you. A physical concept is an idea from Physics or an >>> idea >>> >>> used by physicists. >>> >>> >>> John said: >>> It's a ghost, dave. It's only in your head. That doesn't mean it's not >>> real, >> >>> after all, everything is only in your head and everything is the only >>> reality > >>> you'll ever know, so I don't see what the big deal is, anyway. Except you >>> sure >> >>> got some hang-up with reality, man. You insist that your reality is the >>> only > >>> possible one, while we all know that the universe is pluralistic. ... And >>> do we >>> >>> all have to conform to your definitions? Even when they're wrong? >>> >>> >>> dmb says: >>> Seems like you and Marsha keep making this same mistake over and over. See, >>> I'm >>> >>> talking about concepts and definitions, not reality. If I say that Marsha >>> is >>> misusing terms and quote Pirsig saying that definitions are the foundation >>> of > >>> reason, I do NOT mean to say that proper definitions are reality. If I say >>> "gravity" has a proper definition, I do NOT mean to say that the law of >>> gravity >>> >>> is anything more than a concept. I'm simply saying that Marsha will never >>> be >>> able to communicate effectively without using concepts and definitions >>> properly. >>> >>> And neither can anyone else. This is not a claim about ultimate realties. >>> It's >> >>> about the english language and the nature of reasonable philosophical >>> discussions. Who thinks the riddle of the universe can be found in a >>> dictionary? >>> >>> Nobody, that's who. But you know what CAN be found in the dictionaries? >>> Definitions. Words. Lots and lots of words. Lots and lots of concepts. And >>> they >>> >>> all relate to each other, mean what they mean in relation >>> >> to >>> each other. >>> But there must always be a discrepancy between concepts reality because the >>> former are static and the latter is dynamic. The latter is undifferentiated >>> and >>> >>> the former is all chopped up into bits. Those static bits ARE words and >>> concepts. To counter the demand for proper use of terms with quotes about >>> undefined Dynamic Quality is to change the subject from dictionaries to the >>> mystic reality, from reason to mysticism. To confuse these two things is to >>> misunderstand the distinction between DQ and static quality. > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
