Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immanuel Kant
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 46 (7513)
03-21-2002 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Punisher
03-19-2002 12:29 PM


I have always wished I had a job that would allow me to use Kant in my work rather than only to categorize him but I must say logically I was duly impressed and have considered scholarship that shows no advance over Aristotle is false as a Galileo would know by the same logic but done by the man without what telescopes did many years later. This way I could put up with Kant's alien but this is not Sagan's and the elite probably doesn't care aout this one either.
Kant, posed a question to me about the bound that Maxwell is the only one who attempted the answer but without benefit of Cantor. It is time to clean up the Hall. The diameter of the tube is not a milatary spec and may be Islamic as well. But so much for objectivity on True Seeker's. I may just stop posting there at all. Triple Helix is old news no matter the ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Punisher, posted 03-19-2002 12:29 PM Punisher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-21-2002 4:14 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 12:44 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 19 of 46 (7877)
03-26-2002 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by KingPenguin
03-22-2002 12:30 AM


I just began this writing to
Regardless of the selection for a gradual insertion of plastids and mitochondria locating the descent in time, procaryotes become less hidden as such Meyerowitz makes an astute and correct conclusion "Although the logic underlying many developmental processes is similar" and it is this logic that will be history for protenomics companies that change business plans from information sharing out of a genomic scope become the metrics driven pattern of information processing that changes in life sciences can foster without needing the particular views of evolution as such in a more proper comparison of plants and animals and microbes developing the trajectory but not the orbit.
What is fundamental here for the orbit of plant and animal and procaryotes (perhaps lichens MOVE to Earth while birds and angiosperms alter towards the Sun??) is the geometry of descent the logic horizontally at least supplies, in this case, plastids and/or mitochondira, but the area aside, developmental biology does have a common embryology and biologic logic that is independent of organic solvent dissolution intuition and animates public stock options in bio-tech firms advertisments' is.
The mechanism of bioentropisms have not been implemented but clearly this common logic that p1485 "the molecules that carry out the logical plan are unrelated, or represent novel arrangements of ancient protein domains" that splits topobioloigcal thought topologically is lumpable whether by gradual phenomenology or fast selection. Electricity goes across this diverse domain in the region of any electron likewise moving in the same space as the mitochondria or plastid as per cellular dynamics truely comparative in the topography but not geography! And any economic gain per business techno-bioloigcally seeks the e-commerce to retain proprietarily this kinematics as leverage was.
It is entirely possible to imagine contra Meyerwitz that outside any not more developmental comparison magnetic or not that momentos Galileo correlate (would be found to correlate if cause) effectively even hidden microbes not compared yet enzymatically derived geonomically but this requires some strucutre as Croizat for instance serialized in STF64. This logical instrument of thought however, is blocked academically from seeing the light of day because ownership is supposed to go from university to industry and not from patient to doctor. A new economic is needed in bioinformatics and this is socially possible wihout needing to support either Newton's Day 4 of GOD or Dariwin's as Mayr has him will not be.
Bio-technology needs to recognize techno-biology else one risks confusing in this comparison three primary color psychology with 3 soma pigments of animals and thus exclude some of those hidden biologic changes that exist in the identification process.. There is a confusion of information of communication and communication of information here and relying on intellectual property law or copyrights mechanism is no substitute for the pulley it was else every subspecific differentiation verified would need be patentable as should.
The university is to blame and must reform which for creative reasons it is in less position to do than industry so for the future of agriculture during this invelopment of biomass productivity shifr, a government (on same as in electronics that Japan currently does) is called to assit the efficiency of an inadequate insitution (the modern research college) so that food for thought and bile is available to all and not distributed on a shifting scale of medical returns as ought not.
The private sector by use of distributative education is in need to found for the future of agricuture over any IT interest not only freedom of publication, but full disclosure of data underlying technical improvements (no matter the fall out) of its own newly created self-policing guild by repeling the adminastrators of these elite 3 schools WITHOUT actually attracting any proffesors but rather educating students in a way the old-school research university because of its SECULAR burden can not out compete or out source our current higher education is as is not made to target the species that has best survival actuality but rather to buttress the health and welfare of the rich on the assumption that if the poor emulate the rich the poor can become rich. This is not the economic at work biologically. If ants are the species we are going to come down the strech with then bioprocessing engineering needs to be geared to entomology and not a particular human races' personalized disease. We do not have enough money invent only in crises mode, on global warming, nanobot released food web-collapse, radioactive fallout for more MAD etc as to be so proud as the rich want the poor to be. So help us God.
If ecophysiology is "to predict the future impact of mankind on living organisms, we need to know how organisms become adapted to a rapidly changing world and determine the limitations of adaptive processes." then in the above business plan I haved indicated a possible solution that looks at the boundary of molecular free-path lengths to bind any of these limitations which woul dbe the targeted use of the logic under development and in history. Certainly, in the logic of biodiversity informatics in the context of bioinformatics this decision is programmable by the use of the virial no matter the attraction or repulsion conceived to sphere a virtual reality invasiveness less pernicious than the elite control of higher education that is no higher in this sense of any adaptive pattern this specification is likely also to speak out ( I know) implemetable. There will be a whole plethora of path instrumentation retrofitted onto present technologies of data capture and storage should the chemical intuition be also so applied in one company affirmed but should the effort continue to be distributed because of universal rejection of the eco-justice remaining sustainable the biologic change may in fact to be found not as comprehensive and human social restraint clearly emerging from the data such luxuray as millions of years may suffer. This is not the time to bash creationists but to bring the next 100 yrs the past gift under Bill Clinton's bed unless of course Monica is given an opt out of Earth migration route with some Russian Cosmonaut....
Regardless as some predictions of ecophysiology are sustained by a NEON like community infrastructure retained ecosystem engineering may be thought capable of moving out the bedroom hack and cross national boundaries in so far as biology is currently that far flung wing dispersed form the distribution so deduced not disseminated. The confusion within bio-tech wall street on how to aportion genomic and protenomic departments would then be resolvable into a common goal (not XML) of global agriculture (no matter the CU or Rutgers etc) , green-house gases reductions, so as to lessen impact once fighting sects are militarily shown the solution is to green the planent rather than swaping weapons techincally leaving any pirating to be shucked corn of dinner plate asteriod colonies that input in an accountable way no matter their deviance to the Mother Earth Economy ( My own view is that Mars should be stationed for telescope lab object of increasing accuracy of asteriod orbit dynamics and all efforts to outer space narrowed rather than broadened in this sense but the tensions may not be that easily resolved as throwing off to asteriods rather than Australia (pressures)(that is not a political but biogeographic comment)) despite the loss of centralization that such solar system explorers may enjoin but certainly not enjoy since have to make a life and repoduce in space is not Edenic fall of gravity. At this time transmission genetics and physiological genetics will be one but molecular biology need not answer all ecophysiological inquires as other techincal changes may show that we we far to near sighted and not beautiful enough to call a frog-leg a device and that religion has a place in the future as it would have been wrong, right humanity beyond some evolved myth in the right or left brain of some far sighted person conversely. I have my onw speculations on Wright's immigration pressure in this regard to Kant's alien who would be Kant's slime rather no matter which Critique is read as categorized of astronauts dillema psycholigcally on looking at Earth from their INNER space not already there!!!!!!!!!!!!!**********evolved myth of the astronaut lineage of civilization out netural evolution.
Book being written on this base contains 9 sections
1)6DOF virials2)Electric Fish Behavior3)Cantor and Fourier Analysis
4)Electrotonic State5)Wright and Ecosystem engineering6)Parallel Processing
7)Snake Taxogeny8)Macrothermodynamics9)Fourier's Heat
Now though I put more effort in my postings here than on TS if this is still not clear enough let me know and with another cycle I will try to conclude the paragraphing with less passive voice.
Just so that you know that I do not bash E. Mayr unnecessarily you should be able to suspect, I mean I suspect, that Mayr's scholarship as it has always been verifyable to me (outside opinion, polemics etc) is that he misspoke to me in 87 using his anti-essentialist argument for which was the last remaining philosophy of as he, Mayr 'bats' it as COSMIC TELEOLOGY. I understood him to criticize me as not being a population thinker, which is "patently" false but I do understand the slew of CU profs he was speaking to about the actual lack of Bohr's "aquosity". The problem I had was that I THINK much more physically than biologists but I read physics much less so than chemists. That is simply the quirk of biology containing both quality and quantity and no genetic reduction overall biogeographically. I was influenced in my teen-age years by Penrose Twistor's on PBS which to this day I still can not disasociate from Maxwell's imaginary representation of Faraday's unaccouted research program by vortexs which speaks to me a differnt ethology than that which is narrowly filtered from BULL FROG evoked response physiology and extenstion by analogy to other forms still within Newton's audibles vs visibles. This is not Bohr's Aquosity but some casuation with Helmholtz and thermodymanics of biologic change sperates the gap. There is no special creation here. But out of the objected teleology, Kantian or otherwise, I am slowly coming to a resolution of my conflict with Mayr that was Blind to Gould by applying daily Croizat to my thought. I think, but do not have confirmed, that Mayr scholarship is wheeled to keep Croizat work out from influence in Biology. If this is the soure or a sink of Mayr then my undergraduate work was wrongly committed the form of a cartoon. In 87 on asking Mayr about a curve from the line made straight somehow in the data base I never got but had been promised I concluded that no matter the ontogentic error in the data that could contributed to "hidding" some bio-change that was the goal to expose etc the ADULT recorded data in the line that no matter the statistics applied to use during the interpretation HAD TO FALL INSIDE A CROIZAT GENERALIZED TRACK.
That is the reason I got kicked out. It wa becasue I concluded something the proffesionals had not been able to. The reason? A-they read and worked off of ciruclated curricula without going to the library for the answer. And now that Mayr seems to have removed the philosphical realism of natural selection from Darwin it seems that it can only be for my being a Chruch ELDER that this happened to me. YOu see I am in agreement with Mayr on much just as Croizat was not in disagreement with him about his understanding of birds. The is by observation still and not theory as the plan above attempts to set forth and depended simply on the change in thought about what consitutues a speices in herpetology on looking at Scanning Electron Microscopy of snake scales. The logic is likely Galileo's (telescope) and not the Woodger functor I likely have biased without support.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:30 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 03-29-2002 1:53 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 46 (7993)
03-29-2002 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by TrueCreation
03-29-2002 1:53 AM


tRUTH SOME times. back to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 03-29-2002 1:53 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 03-29-2002 2:57 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 46 (8022)
03-30-2002 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mister Pamboli
03-22-2002 12:44 AM


Yes this is an interesting post.
By reading a sentence or two in the begininng and at the end I will say a few things before I completely take the thing in.
Quine's "ordinal strength" by sticking to classes and avoiding a lot of the troublesome things with Infinity will help in the way dynamical biology can be "strengthed" Beyond say what is currently happening at Princeton under Levin bath patch diffusion of materials leadership for it is far from clear that Feynman would have been right about biology in this alleomorph, multiple alleles per locus (place) truth of the post-Lavosier not fixed air that Dobshanky called gene "pool". The Jury is still out on Bohr's "aquosity" but if one simply takes the ONE KINEmatic to be the zip/unzip DNA for out Newton's LINEAR inertia then the Maxwell account no matter the nano tube size can continue in the SAME dynamic if the Galileo momento be found to be the same in that thought cardinal.
As soon as cardinal and ordinal a divided the same problem of dominace and recesiive traits "crops up". This may all be done with Quine, but there are alternatives and the 3 dynamic position I take for the one interaction Internet is likely to any Transfinite GENETICs I may have begun to propose. It is clear that with a Darwinized Macrothermodynamics all this and more is possible to bring mole bio more in the natural hisotry tradition. It will not come more the way of fossils but of deductive biogeography with fossil finds changing views on discovery rather than discipline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 12:44 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 27 of 46 (8023)
03-30-2002 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by The Barbarian
03-29-2002 8:07 PM


Actually, barb
It was higher, you should not have looked under the pot.
I did not say how to think perverted about angular vectors which may be scalars acutually to the biologist and as for special creation the judge and not the jury is out on that one too. See it is above

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by The Barbarian, posted 03-29-2002 8:07 PM The Barbarian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by The Barbarian, posted 03-30-2002 8:43 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 29 of 46 (8068)
04-01-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by The Barbarian
03-30-2002 8:43 PM


B, this is a test to see if posting within the thread works. If it does, P- then i would conclude some problem with the New Site searcH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by The Barbarian, posted 03-30-2002 8:43 PM The Barbarian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 04-01-2002 1:56 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 04-03-2002 11:04 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 46 (8141)
04-03-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Brad McFall
04-01-2002 1:39 PM


Problem fixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2002 1:39 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 04-04-2002 7:38 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 46 (8413)
04-10-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mister Pamboli
03-22-2002 12:44 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b] O Brad, I wish I could understand your posts!
I did a quick search on Google for sites which mention Galileo, Cantor, Aristotle and Kant in one article and guess what? Here's one I think you will enjoy ...
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieHatt.htm
Meanwhile, here's a first.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
i GUESs i REALLY do agree with the opening statement in this link. There may be a slight philosophical difference but the pragmatics I can attend to and below is a continuation of the use of group algebra or the consequences as I see it rather than how this author divides up the labor:
I have been positioning my view in a conditional form but on the over a year of postings has revealed that that a more declartive mood is called for whther I am harking back to Aristotle or not that far.
Maxwell electro-tonic state is now not just a historical possibilty in the spirit of creation/evolution discussion but the very reasoning needed to solve, a problem that can be solved, something in science that has prevented me from establishing my self as a herpetologist. On the counterfactual side Becker hints that out of the Purdue window regardless of the distance any contiguity operates the lines of force ions RESTRICT all nerve tissue constriction instructing any ion not only Debeye extra ion one (which Becker maintains logically a flow different for ions and electrons) to nerve tissue but as Becker pointed out in the difference of epidermal and epidymal tissue (knowing now that melanin originates in neural crest) any over-medicated under-reported resistance CAN NOT BE A PORTABLE COMPUTER LAnguage Unitil and uNless a software hardward doublE morphometric landmark tangent space spanned (biomechanically and elctrobiogeometrically) via Maxwell electrotonics (no simple "proper control group" is suitable). So Borgens for the same every Purdue comment, grammatically but does not lexically suceed in criticizing Becker's LOGIC. I can relegated to the Lunatic Fringe with Croizat but logic speaks for itself. Becker could be wrong and data not words would bear this out. Criticism of Faraday's contiguity distance coemes out as a deconstruction of the word "contralateral" for bypassing (my herpetological subjecitive AND Becker's opinion (it can not be both)) any displacement Becker's idea for NEJ (neural epidermal junction) no matter the 2ndary conductor! This is a false fact. This is a solvable scientific problem that may side more with Tesla's beauty in nature then Borgen;s artist amphibian rendition. Borgens managed to seperate Hopkin's idea of e-fish communication from the remarkable amphibian and other regenerations. Again my observations of herp behavior would have been passed by. This is an even more pointed and damnning result from my pen than my ongoing suface of all nanos whether by computer made or Searle's work worked. It is most likely my place to begin to discuss the kinetic theory of gases and transpiration without adapting it to my criticism of Provine at the NEJ that Crookes Tube Action explains the remark made about regeneration and also much else that is wrong in neuropharmachology.
It seems to me that Becker has been slighted the likes I have EVEN THOUGH he and not I is published in Nature and Science. Bogens' "direct odds"( Natrual Volatge Gradients and the Generation and Regeneration of Limbs) is either Galileo's odd number association with acceleration or simply Becker's easy to understand visualization of how to apply the Hall effect to regenerate work. Either way the data comes out this phrase is not of much help. Becker recognizes the Purdue Man and not the Artifiact Man Evnvironment to contain a voltage and sodium whether a Yale or Harvard maN, so that while Becker reasoning is as clear as the polarized sky a Rana Clamitans saw Borgens is more anthropomorphic bypassing not only material but the thinking of Tesla which Becker does not do. This is a mistake as undersiable as that being in proper English, JJ Thompson's word. I see no reason to not follow the reasoning of Becker in general up to reinterpreation interms of electrotonic states but reject Borgens only on the basis of the turnings that must be either Becker's vectors or some suitable pervision to maintain the salamdners symmetry at least as the debate goes on with Phd cutting off salamander hands. I had a hard enough time toe clipping Eurcyea so it may be some time before I expt this way. There is nothing wrong with Becker's thought about the ions for which the freezing seemed to show, documented or not, the coupling of the torque whether by protein expressivity or not to any other generator able to convert the alternations of nervous system into directing the periferal lipid water topology under the environemtn of miscible and immiscible not Borgens skin moisture vs environemental humidity. Viscosity and not an under reported resistence langauge of in and out of nerve before or after blastemas was called for there. But then can I expect better. Last time i did I was locked up and threatned with electro-shock. How ironic. so it is my veiw that NEJ is a coupling of alternating electricity of the nervous system as a whole to the exterior membrane potential and able to organize cell processing under torque of DNA dediffentinating BACK by providng the prior (in develpment) space the dermis divided but now cut reformats. Dont understand? I give up. I wish I was in Prussia. A current without Na+ stumping for the politics of neutral evolution may mean simply a relaxation of the non-torque motor (equal and oppositie may be in the microtubules etc) on the negative side of the Na+ current thus why Borgens was stumped. The possibility is remote but one nonetheless. I had a different idea and more easily described when looking at capacitance in remote electronic control of circumnutating plants for the biochemical equivalent without now ANY recapitulation either!! Thus this could be Lysenkoist and a Darwinist wouldn't know the difference but becasue they dont know it they lock people like me up.
The problem is that there-where this is a problem in herpetology had been responsible for the social difficulties I have had while the relevant passage of Maxwell I have already interpreted to the benefit of biologic change leaving it to be comapred to in in this conflict between Becker and Borgens. "It appears, therefore, that, that a vertical wire moving eastwards will experience an electromotive force tending to produce in it an upwards current. If there is no conducting circuit in connexion with the ends of thewire, no current will be formed, and the magnetic forces will not be altered; but if such a circuit exists, there will be a current, the lines of magnetic force and the vorticies will be altered from their state previous to the motion of the wire."
The current conflict is unable to be certain IN THIS VORTEX, if the state is one of electrons or ions? But instead of me moving on towards the pre-formulation of this question and a resolution in answer I was and am still being pressure to take Lithium or some such hip drug. It feels to me as if I was on the street of Columbia or say Miami when I am in the Halls of the A D White House or Day Hall. It had always felt this way at Cornell and I suspect it will for some time to come. I tried to tell someone this is not medical just last week but all I ever get is that unless you take this medical and dont shove it, swallow the meds, nothing will change but indeed this problem in herpetology will neither go away nor be solved no matter how much thorzine I am on. They don't get. Synthesized medication IS NOT a Maxwell vortex even though we do not acutally know what one is. It may even be that the ion idea is wrong but I don't want to open my mouth too wide for fear that they may just force one of these things down as I have on record was even contemplated in my case. Meyer these are not true seeker twistors, M$M colors, nor theone copyrighted, trust me, I am not on thorozine.
Furthermore we can not say from my very conclusion that whatever it is thta BSM talks about that the benefit is either in and or fhe ion or electron, not becasue of Croizat's panbiogeography (that was only a 4 credit independent study), that designer drugs can be made into designere diseases because this would boost the whole of bio-tech in the search of the correct combination of ion to electron per protein or expressed system IN AN INDUSTRY that I have even worse fears than an IVY kid getting locked up in Jail in New Orleans but rather food web collapse as some other country than the US is able economically whether in cooperation with others or by itself as the US works down this increasingly sterile but rather proven path. Of course no one wants to leave the future economy to the survival of a bunch of druged up sports on Java vets but some ecosystem enginnering is the response not profit motive as we find out what environments not Gates' environITemts are able to replicate. Replicating the the angle iron misses the benefit by propriortizing it preprietarily using a two-lined salamander to wag a rattle snake tail that is in its den depreciating LIFO or FILO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 12:44 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 46 (10357)
05-25-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Minnemooseus
03-22-2002 1:04 AM


Min, it is possible having given up or on the categorical position of the Kant science as represented in the link to still seak in the asethetic the same uncoditioned and yet not bring my own message forward. I doubt however that P. Alberch's game will continue to not find the node of this in panbiogeography but I beat around the BUsh again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2002 1:04 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 46 (11835)
06-19-2002 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
06-14-2002 1:46 AM


I know I am not Kant and Richard Boyd Labeled me an idealist before his wife who only heard of me second hand or by mouth sealed me diagnosed yet these are only in DSM if going to Doctor without illness IS AN ILLNESS in my case neither are true, I revert to parent form, agree with Wallce and read a book canvassed from Aurburn NY same two years Darwin got this feeling. Slime has none but Kant did. Dont think this. I mean I didnt think so, John.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 06-14-2002 1:46 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 06-19-2002 6:14 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 46 (11883)
06-20-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
06-19-2002 6:14 PM


Thanks for the timely reply J, I was very very, did I say "very" impressed with Kant's PRO-book because it made some Russian work on Galaxy forms look childish by comparison. Kant had reached in the competition on the spin among the planents to VISUALIZE the thinkness of, his term, "systematic constitution" BEFORE the telescope did the same that was the instrumental basis of the book on spiral galaxies etc. And after I read Hume and found him, on my own unconvincing, I was totally into Kant's mule but I have not yet been able to update Kant into the categories that things as extreme as Wolfram's digital philosophy suspects while it is possible even any a priori ness of Mendel non-contiuna 3/1 may be (if topology is added to statistical protocol split of genotype and phenotype)not analog BUT WITH KANTS MEASURE (see failure of math to follow out the collection in Lebesque) but I doubt it. I am still much too weded not to Babbage-IBM but to the e-fish waveform and having to right down an equation from the oscilloscope. In this way I am like Gould with a electric typewriter and not the C# platform of bioinformatics. Again, happy too see you send this back so quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 06-19-2002 6:14 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John, posted 06-20-2002 7:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 46 (11936)
06-21-2002 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
06-20-2002 7:23 PM


That would be a known historical approach to the subject but I would try to go out space with what Wolfram would be if he was an AMERICAN PASCAL? What do you think philosophicall? Take all the time in the world Plato or otherwise

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 06-20-2002 7:23 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 06-24-2002 12:08 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 46 (12158)
06-25-2002 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John
06-24-2002 12:08 AM


jOHN, indeed I do know the answer to this question. If you read The SAME and NOt the Same by Roland Hofmann whom I have at a word with you will find the answers that we could discuss even though mark thinks that this is only a point in the looking glass. I had a more detailed conversation with Von Weisacker who is also mentioned in the book published by Columbia Univ press 1995 though I do belive I brought the same whrilygigs to scientific attention earlier than the chemsitry was worked up on them yet the bug that shat on its back Einser had already seen and pulled THAT re-print off the shelf as I handed him the insect. Bipolarity is not transitive assymetry in conceptual biology. We must restrain speuclation as far as possible to PAscal's H20 equilibrium. The thing that this book nor Cornell left untaught or taught against is that within the content of the solutions we could discuss in answer to bothering to question again is that laws of water growth morphogeny are not in the same specif gravity histogeny laws of non water growth yet remain reflected by the same refraction that Newton aspected. Still my science may be obscure but one day it will appear to some other not techno-babble that Mark immediate underwrote or with oversight wrote off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John, posted 06-24-2002 12:08 AM John has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 43 of 46 (12174)
06-25-2002 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John
06-24-2002 12:08 AM


Also I have ID'd your mistake. You substituted any Wolfram future use of prior E XI ISTING Mendel a prirori with Hibert's for as to your Plato I say "Ignoramus et ignorabiums" but remain not if you refer yourself AND ANY remark to Sam Williams Arguing AI. There is indeed a likely conflict with QM, nanoecology, the adapative generation but who is to void this? That would be modern opposite to some ancient Anaxagoras and existing which says not much for the True Seekers who continue TO TRY to turn this upside down, but as Croizat said they will the track do but to no avail for the sketch remains invariantly framed by its paragon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John, posted 06-24-2002 12:08 AM John has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 44 of 46 (14975)
08-07-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by joz
03-19-2002 12:58 PM


I will try to include Derrida's reply on philosophy with reference to Kant as I begin to work out the comments that may be available on this thread especially when it comes to a desitination that is not impossible. It is hard for me to divide the face of this site such but that would be the task if not parralelled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 03-19-2002 12:58 PM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024