Prev: Let us reduce the speed of light
Next: Why (ex Elimination) so complicated? (SEP)
From: Zinnic on 26 Nov 2009 07:21
On Nov 25, 6:43 pm, 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.

Sniff! Keep it simple!.
No brain, no mind, no experience, no flowers, no bouquet!
From: John Jones on 28 Nov 2009 23:22
Errol wrote:
> 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.

You haven't touched my argument.
From: John Jones on 28 Nov 2009 23:22
Errol wrote:
> 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.

I'm not being understood, I think.
From: John Jones on 28 Nov 2009 23:23
Zinnic wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:43 pm, 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.
>
> Sniff! Keep it simple!.
> No brain, no mind, no experience, no flowers, no bouquet!
sright wooferooney.
From: Alan Ford on 28 Nov 2009 23:59
John Jones wrote:

>> 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.
>
> You haven't touched my argument.

Touch it. You know you want to.


--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Let us reduce the speed of light
Next: Why (ex Elimination) so complicated? (SEP)