First Causes

Alex Green dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Sep 11 05:58:32 EST 2004


lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4141f007.920566 at netnews.att.net>...
> On 9 Sep 2004 15:14:21 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> 
> >lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41406d36.55578664 at netnews.att.net>...
> >> On 9 Sep 2004 04:39:35 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
> >> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> 
> [. . .]
> 
> >> >Could there be differences without these things? If so, how?
> >> 
> >> Could there be space and time without differences? No.
> >
> >Please explain. Are you using the term 'differences' to mean the
> >presence of more than one thing or the detection of more than one
> >thing? If the latter then the detection would involve more than one
> >thing so many things come before 'difference'. If the former then you
> >have widened the term 'difference' so far that it just means 'things'.
> 
> We have a significant problem here. If you're going to arbitrarily
> snip relevant comments, there is nothing to discuss. If you want
> answers to questions, please extend me the courtesy of addressing
> all points I submit for consideration of the issue. I use the term
> difference in the sense of contradiction, negation, or not.
> 

My apologies, on some moderated groups they will not allow
contributions without the removal of items that are not addressed in
the current post.

How could a negation occur as a 'first cause'? Suppose a thing
occurred as a first ever thing, if this thing was a 'not thing' it
would not have occurred. Can you explain how negation could be the
first cause?

Best Wishes

Alex Green



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list