Prev: Let us reduce the speed of light
Next: Why (ex Elimination) so complicated? (SEP)
From: John Jones on 25 Nov 2009 14:54
Errol wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2:53 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
>> pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
>> that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
>> mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
>> of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
>> and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.
>
> His view denies the physicalist requirement for the existance of
> structures or processes that might be responsible for thought in the
> brain without providing an acceptable alternative.
> I deny his view.
>


The brain is an extra piece of matter, a stuck on wobbly and unnecessary
appendage, that has no bearing to anything we do.
From: Tom Sr. on 25 Nov 2009 15:44
On Nov 21, 7:53 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> In the mature Witt. there is a split between logic and grammar, between
> syntax and organizing principle of the elements of syntax.

Grammar as "philosophy".

The Horror. The Horror.

-Tom Sr.
From: John Jones on 25 Nov 2009 19:43
Errol wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2:53 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
>> pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
>> that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
>> mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
>> of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
>> and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.
>
> His view denies the physicalist requirement for the existance of
> structures or processes that might be responsible for thought in the
> brain without providing an acceptable alternative.
> I deny his view.
>

Yes, you are saying that the elements (the brain) are the only thing(s)
that counts. Whereas, as I said in my last paragraph, we should not
forget the organizing principle of elements.

In this case, the organizing principle of the elements we call the
'brain' are our experiences. It is our experiences that point out, or
organize, the elements we call the brain. It isn't the element(s) - the
brain - that points out our experiences.
From: Errol on 26 Nov 2009 04:36
On Nov 26, 2:43 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Errol wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 2:53 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
> >> pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
> >> that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
> >> mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
> >> of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
> >> and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.
>
> > His view denies the physicalist requirement for the existance of
> > structures or processes that might be responsible for thought in the
> > brain without providing an acceptable alternative.
> > I deny his view.
>
> Yes, you are saying that the elements (the brain) are the only thing(s)
> that counts. Whereas, as I said in my last paragraph, we should not
> forget the organizing principle of elements.
>
> In this case, the organizing principle of the elements we call the
> 'brain' are our experiences. It is our experiences that point out, or
> organize, the elements we call the brain. It isn't the element(s) - the
> brain - that points out our experiences.

I would agree with you if mankind could be regarded as having no known
origin, but the fact of evolution provides a working explanation of
our experiences developing simultaneously with our brains.
From: Errol on 26 Nov 2009 05:11
On Nov 26, 2:43 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Errol wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 2:53 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
> >> pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
> >> that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
> >> mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
> >> of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
> >> and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.
>
> > His view denies the physicalist requirement for the existance of
> > structures or processes that might be responsible for thought in the
> > brain without providing an acceptable alternative.
> > I deny his view.
>
> Yes, you are saying that the elements (the brain) are the only thing(s)
> that counts. Whereas, as I said in my last paragraph, we should not
> forget the organizing principle of elements.
>
> In this case, the organizing principle of the elements we call the
> 'brain' are our experiences. It is our experiences that point out, or
> organize, the elements we call the brain. It isn't the element(s) - the
> brain - that points out our experiences.

I would also agree with you if you said the mind instead of the brain.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Let us reduce the speed of light
Next: Why (ex Elimination) so complicated? (SEP)