Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Christmas Thread
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 44 of 46 (171686)
12-27-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brad McFall
12-24-2004 8:57 PM


Re: and to all a good night
Brad,
I basically understood... or understood some things in a very basic way. You decide:
Your application of Gladyshev's observations and macrothermodynamic model to Agassiz's quote seemed straightforward to me.
I will be attempting to abstract a personal identity of thermal currents but this is for the year ahead.
This struck me as a particularly interesting extension (or application; I've just started reading so I don't know where Gladyshev has taken his basic principles) of Gladyshev's macrothermodynamic model. I'm very interested to know what result you get from that.
This growing coincidence between our system and that of nature shews further the identity of the operations of the human and Divine intellect
I understand. But I disagree. I guess I'd have two comments:
1. If the world unpredictable (i.e. couldn't be modeled by a set of simple rules) then reproduction and survival become impossible. In other words, this predictability is necessary for life itself.
2. I don't think our minds work deductively in any straightforward way. In other words, our underlying computational power is a complete hack. Our ability to do deductive reasoning, data collection, etc. is simply a failry reliable "hack" which sits uneasily upon some more basic computational principles which indirectly support it.
What I'm getting at is that our "mind" and "understanding" is very different than the divine one that I believe you are conceiving of. I think Edelman in particular would disavow any dualist claim. Mind without hardware is literally untenable. Gottlieb would probably equate it to Haeckel's historically regrettable decision to ignore von Baer's perfectly good German and produce his "infamous biogenetic law."
Aristotle's form in nature pulls random chance evolution philosophy FROM Nature while Plato's formation only TO coincidence
and
an unheard of relation of Aristotle and Plato within religious differences of more modern presentation than is generally understood as Western Philosophy and Religion
I don't understand this yet. Can you help point me in the correct direction for reading up on it?
Anyway, I hope I'm on the right track here. Thanks in advance for bearing with me as I do my best to catch up.
Thanks.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2004 8:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 12-30-2004 7:43 PM Ben! 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