IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

No subject

Sun Apr 10 21:52:51 EST 2005

In what context?

You see?

>  They are explicit or not, are shared
>or not, etc.  Explanations are plausible or implausible.  Once you have
>defined your terms,

And you better define your terms and be able to validate their
ISness, else you are just like a priest, peddling obscenities
in the name of truth.

> so we know what it is that you are trying to

Yes, IS.

> then your explanation may be evaluated as to its plausibility.

Another trap.
Plausibility implies a certain state of knowledge and a certain
set of beliefs.
It was UTTERLY "implausible" one day that the earth is like a ball,
and not like a pizza, sitting on 3 gian cock roaches,
you see.

Another thing is "evaluation".
Evaluation is based accepting certain limitations,
oftern imposed by logic. This is a limitation of scope.
Logic is just capable of dealing with certain limited
notions, based on certain initial assumptions and a set
of rules or, as you call them, "laws",
that forever get outdated.

Evaluation is not concerned with "irrational things",
such as love, joy, purpose, intent, and quite a few other
most critical things.

It IS concerned mostly on cold blooded "facts", derived
or assumed.

And those "facts" are just beliefs.

Zo, even yer royal "evaluation" reduces to religion.


>The famous argument which you say Searle has "on his side" is simply
>another example of a profound intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, first of all, searle is the only one to decide that.
Secondly, even attempting to side with ANY noble name
IS an indication of PROFOUND intellectual dishonesty.

Else, what is the reason to resort to authority of ANY kind.
Is searle a god?
An omni-potent entity, all knowing?

Jesus beats all this cunning tricks of majority opinion
with a simple, most elegant formulation you can find:
"Those who CAN see, WILL see..."

He does not say:
"Those, who read all the smart books".
There is no mistake on this level.

But that, even though undescribable, ability, or capacity
to see, which is undeniable by ANY theory or science,
does exist.
It IS beyond ALL definitions. And yet it IS.
Those, who come to this orgasmic state of "seeing",
no matter how long it lasts, are not concerned with ANY
theory or "explanation". There is simply no inherent need
for it.

That notion of seeing is a much more advanced idea
than all the ideas about "knowledge" combined.

We are not even close to comprehend the remifications
of that seemingly simplistic, or even outrageously "stupid"
statement. All depends on what kind of a donkey you are.
But the hell will freeze over before can deny a validity
of such a notion. There is just way too much work and experience
went into that jazz, you see.
Not that easy.

So now we have "intellectually dishonest" people,
running around, throwing weight of authority, while peddling
the techniques of ass licking and packing order essentially.

That is not good, dear mrs. science.

You swore to eternally seek THAT WHICH IS,
even though limiting its scope to various degrees.

But once we have a dishonesty in science,
and that is pretty much what we have at the moment,
then the last pillar falls.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net