In <35B21327.6B651C9E at banet.net> Sej Mac <skring at banet.net> writes:
>>F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>>> In <6oiq4s$87u$1 at nnrp1.dejanews.com> kyan1 at vaxc.hofstra.edu writes:
>> > Everything (p)1998 July 11
>> > * beginning with solipsism. Im trying to make sense of the
>>> COMMENT: Lots of luck; you're operating with a severe handicap.
>>Actually, Kyan is making a proper start. All true philosophers,
>and obscure, start this way.
FURTHER COMMENT: I don't denigrate the start, but given the evident
handicap, doubt the outcome.
- - - - - - - (snip)- - - - - - - - -
on October 22--I forget the year--Fechner
>> had a sudden conviction that he knew how to prove
>> everything in the universe was conscious. He wasn't
>> thinking clearly--just woke out of a deep sleep--but
>> his method DID prove useful)(i.e. the psychophysical
- - - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - -
> I disagree with Frank's value assessment of psychophysics. Fechner &
>Weber were outrageously idiotic with their "equations." At their
>today, the nonphysical sciences (knowledge pursuits) were very
>the physical sciences' success (mostly physics), and mistakenly
>that it was due to "math." This misapprehension continues today. The
>success of the physical sciences, IMO, is that they *observed.*
>Carefully, with their *minds.* The seeking and relatively unfettered
>is capable of controling variables on its own. It "instinctively"
>utilizes the scientific method of REASONING.
FURTHER COMMENT: Well, here we have the problem in a nutshell.
"Reasoning" is NOT the scientific method. It is the method of
philosophers and (for that matter) the man in the street, in his
armchair, re-inventing not only round wheels but also square ones and
generating nothing much but endless arguments basically incapable of
resolution. Only in the past 2-3 centuries, with acelerating pace, has
rigorous application of the scientific method begun to answer those
questions which are susceptible of answers.
The psychophysical method, as a METHOD, has contributed to our
knowledge of how our senses work, and continues to do so--Fechner's own
applications and conclusions (as well as his bizarre inspiration) are
really not relevant and do not detract from this fundamental
>> COMMENT: I tend to believe Barbie Dolls are still without
>> consciousness; and consciousness may be rather limited in
>> adults who play with them or attribute consciousness to
FURTHER COMMENT: What follows is just plain silly. You would base your
understanding of the universe on figures of speech and/or careless
anthropomorphisms of the (basically unthinking) masses?
Apparently so, given your rather similar approach to those clever
little nucleotides (cute rascals!)
>Matter does seem to be imbued with some kind of "mind." So many
>people have perceived dimly that their cars, their calculating
>machines---even their computers seem to have "minds of their own." And
>don't forget such colloquialisms as "the walls have ears," and "if
>walls could talk. . .." I have difficulty with this at the surface of
>things, but if mass-energy is created out of purely meta-physical
>of the parameters of the set of things we call mass-energy), then
>quantum would possess mind. Not *human* mind, of course. What
>differentiates animate from inanimate matter is the former's ability
>control their own destinies vis a vis the environment. A rock, a
>sand, is at the mercy of erosion. Nucleotides seem to have found a
>around this, limitedly, by coalescing into walless bundles. Then they
>in-vented (in-"winded") walls---the primordial virus; next came the
>internal storehouse of materials to maintain the code
>prokaryote, and so on. Only mind could do this. Statistics and
>chance plays a role only in what the environment provides at any given
>moment. A mind *discerns,* then *learns,* then *chooses.*
>>> > & that humans have 5 senses is only an evolutionary
>>On the right track, I would say, except that who says humans have only
>senses? But even that with which we were endowed have greatly
>over the last 7 millenia from nonuse, misuse, and abuse.