Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
66 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immanuel Kant
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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 taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 04-04-2002 7:38 AM Brad McFall has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 46 (8178)
04-04-2002 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brad McFall
04-03-2002 11:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Problem fixed

HEY!!

I understood Brad's post!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 04-03-2002 11:04 AM Brad McFall has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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 taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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 taken no action

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 46 (11558)
06-14-2002 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by joz
03-20-2002 11:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
I thought that can of worms was opened by the British empiricists, Locke, Hume et al.....

Didn`t Kant attempt to "unify" (spot the physicist we`re obsessed with unified theories) British empiricism and Continental rationalism (Descartes and Co.) forming German Idealism?


I'd put it more like "Kant attempted to salvage rationalism after Hume used empiricism to make a big mess of logic, and math, and causality, and pretty much anything else he could think of." Rationalism meaning "the philosophical outlook or program which stresses the power of [i]a priori[/] reasoning to grasp substantial truths about the world and correspondingly tends to reguard natural sciences as a basically [i]a priori[/] enterprise." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under rationalism)

Kant thought you could think your way to an understanding of the world. But unlike modern rationalism, evidence and experiment didn't really come into play. Kant's rationalism was all logic, all brain.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 03-20-2002 11:40 PM joz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 06-19-2002 6:01 PM John has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 46 (11836)
06-19-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brad McFall
06-19-2002 6:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
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.

WOW, Brad. That reads just like Prolegomena!!!!!

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 06-19-2002 6:01 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 06-20-2002 12:37 PM John has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 46 (11899)
06-20-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad McFall
06-20-2002 12:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
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.

Though I make fun of him for what he did with his metaphysics, I like Kant. For myself, it is the fact that his core idea that we interpret data before becoming aware of it foreshadowed the conclusions implied in the field of neurology, for example. Really quite a brilliant insight.

Hume's Treatise I think was a necessary jab at empiricism, but he undercut himself as well as everyone else.

You'll have to give me time to catch up on Wolfram but from what I've read so far, sounds like Gottfried Liebniz, another favorite of mine.

Take care.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 06-20-2002 12:37 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 06-21-2002 3:27 PM John has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 46 (12013)
06-24-2002 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Brad McFall
06-21-2002 3:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
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

Definitely otherwise, not Plato. The Forms too easily resolve to an exact mirror of the observable world, so why bother?

I suppose I am more empiricist than anything as it seems to require the fewest number of assumptions.

As for your first question, I don't know what you're asking.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 06-21-2002 3:27 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 06-25-2002 1:56 PM John has taken no action
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 06-25-2002 6:19 PM John has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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 taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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 taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 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 taken no action

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 46 (15021)
08-08-2002 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mister Pamboli
03-22-2002 12:44 AM


quote:
Meanwhile, here's a first. Have you ever tried that trick where you use Babelfish to translate something into French and then back to English? How odd it looks! How charming are the infelicities of language thus induced! Strangely, Brad's post comes out virtually unchanged ...

Maybe he has an inbuilt Babelfish program, allowing him to think in his own language then when he converts it to English for us that is what results?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 12:44 AM Mister Pamboli has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 08-08-2002 7:25 PM blitz77 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022