Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
191 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, GDR (3 members, 188 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,368 Year: 7,116/23,288 Month: 1,022/1,214 Week: 34/303 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   [sic] Transubspeciation
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3539 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 11 (332164)
07-16-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
07-15-2006 11:42 PM


concept vs construction of concepts
quote:
Modern rational minds laugh at religionists over things like transubstantiation. Can you imagine Einstein or Sagan or Dennett or Hawking considering the "validity" of transubstantiation ? It is dismissed a priori just as fast as anyone claiming the Earth is flat.

Well, it is hard for me to “rationalize” that the people you named a priori dismiss “things like transubstantiation.” Is there actual information that Einstein dismissed it?

Sure it is possible to imagine such dismissals but I tend to think that it because of the “modern” opinion that there is no such things nor concepts behind them to submit mentally to ‘synthetic a priori statements.’ The difference of opinion seems to result from a general *lack* of this experience.

Now, have you read,
Jammer's book on the history of mass with Einstein intro?

While reading this, I %was% able to relate RATIONALLY the notion of transubstantiation to the issue of unobservables in scientific theories by giving a certain reading between the lines over the transition to premodern notions beyond the Greek division of fire, earth, air, and water. This was thought by me in the 80s and is no longer particularly the track my mind runs over and over again.

Also you could know something about

Kervran's elemental transmutation review

because this idea provides a basis to carry the thought of macroscopic unobservables in biology right back to this historical analysis via Jammer provided one dealt with modern skepticism in physics. You can learn from Von Weisacker (“Unity of Science”) that the word “transmutation” was used simultaineoulsy in biology and physics during the 20s and 30s.

This however says nothing about the nonrational responses. Even Gould’s position *might* be non-rational but to do so would require a determative judgement about the DEFITION of fractal relative to the time during mass etc. This no one person can can claim absolute authority on.

I can say that it was not the case the “Western scientists” simply rejected Kervran’s mutants like one might think that Sagan would or would have dismissed transubstantiation “a priori”[sic] but simply that the circle of Saganalikes travel in does not socially permit the more radical proposals from reaching their attention in a legit (to them) manner.

Thanks for reminding me about an old thought I had had on the relation of speciation and transubstantiation. Unfortunately we substitute a single judgement often where mentally more than one probably does exist.

If it really is possible for one creature to transsubstatiate itself into another (and this will be doubted up and down on EVC) the issue of "symbols" will be a result with consequences for philosophy before it is for theory in biology. That last statment is impossible to establish if one seeks a priori rejection without concurrent synthesis of empirical determinations. This is what "modern" science defensively wears the hat of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-15-2006 11:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-16-2006 6:47 PM Brad McFall has responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3539 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 11 (332327)
07-16-2006 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Cold Foreign Object
07-16-2006 6:47 PM


Re: concept vs construction of concepts
quote:
Hi Brad:
Well, it is hard for me to “rationalize” that the people you named a priori dismiss “things like transubstantiation.” Is there actual information that Einstein dismissed it?

You must be kidding....

In case you are not then I think it safe to assume if Einstein did not believe in the existence of the soul and a personal God capable of being embraced through revelation; then it is equally safe to assume he did not believe in transubstantiation.


You had said,

quote:
Protestants attribute the Mass rite as crystal clear evidence of the invisible effects of Satan's corruption presence. NOBODY CAN SPEAK AND HAVE ONE SUBSTANCE TRANSMUTE ITSELF INTO ANOTHER SUBSTANCE (hocus pocus/black magic) - except God. Catholic transubstantiation is pure heresy originating from the dark mind of Satan.

Modern rational minds laugh at religionists over things like transubstantiation. Can you imagine Einstein or Sagan or Dennett or Hawking considering the "validity" of transubstantiation ? It is dismissed a priori just as fast as anyone claiming the Earth is flat.



Well I was not simply kidding. It is not difficult to imagine the likes of the people you named not being skeptical of 'the bread' becoming 'the body' and wine-blood as per any concept of transubstantiation and in that sense I guess I was kidding. But I have to be very rigorous when it comes to my own use of the word 'a priori'. Correction of error from the negative is however more difficult to sustain. I simply doubted that anyone could actually "a priori" dismiss it. I suggest that evos who do are not believing it and being Pavlof about it is rather a learned behavoir than an actual mental reflexion. I see now that you really, probably, only meant "things *like* transubstantiation, as your question of the the soul and Enstein showed here. I actually meant it, really. It may be that Einstein never got to step two having gone supraphysical at step one in the now old but then new physical way. His resistance to Bohr shows me otherwise. I have not read his comments on Israel however.

quote:
Are you saying an insight was suddenly triggered while reading a book on physics that recognized the concept of transubstantiation in a scientific argument or principle ?

YES--
you see, or rather I should only say I saw, a way of interpreting the history of the construction of the concept of mass in way that the quality of the form or what we most closely call the "dimension" today, could be what the "body" refers to both in some symbolization and as that which transsubstantiates during mass. To make this rigorous requires a lot of work and I had orginally had this thought when I was fully in accord with theoretical existence of unobservables. My own personal sophistication has proceeded apace since and I think I would make a different analysis of Einstein's reading of Jammer's history (aka as to absolute space etc).

quote:
NOBODY CAN SPEAK AND HAVE ONE SUBSTANCE TRANSMUTE ITSELF INTO ANOTHER SUBSTANCE (hocus pocus/black magic) - except God. Catholic transubstantiation is pure heresy originating from the

Well, Kevran, not God, proposed that organisms can transmute the elements in themselves "hocus pocus" BEFORE the "weak force" was discovered. The science IS somewhat questionable here but science itself has simply ignored the vital force and I rather surmise that that is the reason this idea did not take off as the review as linked would hope to explain.

quote:
If so, this is the point of the OP. The ORIGIN of transmutation is Pentateuchal prohibited RELIGIOUS worship (idolatry). I have not traced the exact path of the concept as to how it was introduced into science, but, the point is, that transmutation is not indigenous to science or scientific thought.


I am glad your intention came out this way. But I would take it a step further to suggest that the DIFFERENT religious takes on it are PREVENTING scientists from truth it might otherwise have no reason to defend against. That the difference of the symbol and the matter matters massively and not merely by desgin. Specifing a dissection of impentrabile form is however the challenge if concept be admitted. I am not writing merely for negative purposes to correct errors of design itself but instead would like to know of the relation between mass and inertia as to the figure INSIDE some parralel of "space" etc. Our interest in the topic may depart at this place.

quote:
The point is transmutation is a supernatural concept.
This is fine and really quite dandy but if so I like to be sure where the boundary is and I feel that I have fairly well circumscribed this limit for any other knowledge I might gain in this lifetime.

quote:
Darwinists, undoubtedly, have no interest in finding out how the same made its way into their minds.

Well, if they actually reject ideas such as Kevran's transmutations, not because the idea is useless but because they travel in circles that actively inhibit the acension to their consciousness of these constructable concepts they will be less able to find the border. Further dissection of history will not change this unfortunately, only changes in pedagogy and degree granting would.

There can be "unobservables" that are not "Satanic" but it is true some of my fasincation for them was to maintain the thought that there are not bad things but only good ones. If that is an error on my part it does not do away with the incursion of the substance of it all in scienc itself, whether in biology or physics.

quote:
How could the Darwinist think transmutation has occurred if there is no physical observation corresponding with the idea ? Homology is circumstantial falsified by many monkey wrenches that are hand-waved away by saying "natural-selection-did-it".

Where are observable intermediate effects of natural selection besides varieties ? Reductionist extrapolationism (transubspeciation) gone amok.


Well, you are correct you will not find middle way IN the biological nor the current physical literature. It is possible to read all science literature this way however. Evos do say that "natural selection did it" becuase they introduced the idea of genes which mentally substitute for middle way without needing to be observed in any but an after the event statstical fact. This is what so dissed the Russian biology program (Stalin and Lysenko) and has sustained the current Harvardian biological regime.This does not justify in any way but "after the fact" that evos got rid of the need to see the intermediate forms. The thing was that evos had started talking about the change TO the environment and now they are trying to re-write the whole THOUGHT (of species change) in terms of creatures able to construct the change. This would include them as humans as well. One can only point out that they need to use a design to do this rather than claiming that what they do is intelligent BECAUSE there is no design. Reading biology is certainly frustrating simply because it CAN be so read. It would be less suspect if this was simply in the mind or the soul. It is not. It matters and has mass.

There may even be some lace for your Satin where biologists rarely discuss ill-adapted creatures especially as they thought this was physical and now it is organic. They simply get the whole problem swept away and vanishing with only a sole soul speaking to them.

Edited by Brad McFall, : BB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-16-2006 6:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-17-2006 2:09 PM Brad McFall has responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3539 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 11 (332665)
07-17-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
07-17-2006 2:09 PM


Re: The Science of Satan
quote:
That point said, if it was unclear, that physicists accept the existence of things invisible by the effects of their presence. The effects of Satan's invisible presence is deduced the exact same way.


OUCH!!
Yes modern physicists ( I have two brother Phd physcists; one works now in IT and the other teaches thermodynamics and mechanics in Metz, France)have moved away from the simple claim of things based on the effects of their presence. This was noted by many moderns in the literature as the LOSS of "innersight" (a Germanword). But in so losing this ability, that Delbruck contrarily did not completely except geometrically abandon, biology has been theoretically starved to ill-adaptive series, consequently. By deduction I take it then that you did not mean "mathematical" but "transcendental" DEDUCTION??

Darwinists are not on a trick pony but simply cant decide once and for all what are the genes' vechicles/agents. Rather than determine something like that, they simply DO NOT teach students the "physcio-teleolgical' VieW. This rather has a post-medieval sequence rather than a pre-Greek one.

The "myth" card can be obviated secularly if the realist truth is WITHOUT 'miracle' instead. This is substituted so that they can HAVE their own "Fiction" or "myth" or secular humanism. Take your desire.

Croizat quite deviously used "pathological" language in trying to invert "Darwin, Matthew, Simpson, and later Gould and Nelson etc" but this only really speaks against the ecosystem as Giasts want it, as living- hence to ...Satan. But this is not a real psychological "Delusion" (I should know becuase I was given SSI since I shamed various symptoms to get various diagnoses which finally has been found the error it was (an illusion not an delusion)).

That much could be "deconstructed" in the origin of geometry.

Ok a miracle- see i knew you thought like, maybe a little, me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-17-2006 2:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-17-2006 7:55 PM Brad McFall has responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3539 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 11 (332788)
07-18-2006 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object
07-17-2006 7:55 PM


towards modern physics
Well, (i)t was elaborated in its purest form by Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827) in his writing Mécanique Céleste. The mechanistic view sees the universe as an arrangement in which stars and planets interact with each other like springs and cogs in a clockwork, while God is watching from above. If the initial positions and states of all objects in a mechanically determined universe are known, all events can be predicted until the end of time, simply by applying the laws of mechanics. It was further thought that this kind of knowledge is available only to an omniscient God.

I could not find on-line exactly what I read at Cornell in the 80s. You already know this. It was the loss of confidence in the older mechanical world-view. I recall coming across the word in reference to Lavoisier but I would have to do some digging in Baker Hall at Cornell to find the exact citation.

You already referred to it in affect when not also effect. The problem is that the dynamic of a change relies on getting past the underlaying kinematics and this applies to the MOTIONS in biology that form-making may translate in space. Because physicists have nair but memory of this older way of thinking and biologists are hardly ever trained in the mind-set of any kind of physicist, biologists generally lack the ability to state things relevant to the dynamic that is challenged by some prior said deduction etc.

I think it was also the case in discussing Bohr's "solar system" atom view. Feynman really attempted to communicate without this necessity of connection that is STILL required in theoretical biology.

If you would like me to be more specific I can do some more re-searches for you. Best, Brad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-17-2006 7:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020