IUBio

First Causes

Pat Harrington PatrickDHarrington at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 7 06:55:50 EST 2004


lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<413c719f.22600721 at netnews.att.net>...
> First Causes
>                                                   -----
> 
> There are three main streams of metaphysics in the west: the ancient,
> the classical religious, and Darwinian branch of evolution and natural
> selection. There are undoubtedly others, but at least these three try
> to analyze the nature of man in scientific or quasi scientific terms.
> 
> The ancient branch of metaphysics was laid down by Aristotle who
> defined metaphysics as the study of being qua being and a prime mover
> unmoved as the first cause of everything. Classical religious dogma
> kept the metaphysics and merely replaced the prime mover unmoved by
> god, viewing metaphysics and science as extensions of the intentions
> of god according to holy writ.
> 
> And in perhaps the penultimate chapter in the epistemological
> revolution characterizing the post renaissance natural science,
> Charles Darwin redefined man not according to ancient or classical
> religious assumptions regarding animal, man, and god but according
> to biological linkage between man and animals instead, thus relegating
> metaphysics to the study of evolution of species and the idea of
> evolution as a first cause.
> 
> What's noteworthy in all three instances, however, is that no one ever
> proved anything regarding first causes. Aristotle's first cause, the
> prime mover unmoved was simply an imaginary construct, as was god.
> The ideas of a prime mover unmoved and god were merely forensic
> devices without mechanical support.
> 
> Evolution, on the other hand, certainly had evidentiary mechanical
> support in the origin of species, but nothing in the origin of species
> says definitely what a first cause is of necessity. Evolution and
> natural selection themselves are ideas predating Darwin's connection
> of them to the origin of species. Biological speciation might be a
> vehicle of natural selection. But that doesn't mean it is the only
> possible vehicle of natural selection, evolution, or the necessary
> first cause of everything.
> 
> In other words, the biological origin of species could be true without
> proving the direct connection of man to animal in mechanical terms.
> Evolution could just as easily provide the transition from animal to
> man just as between plant and animal. And we would still be left with
> the distinct and separate categories however they originated. Darwin
> proved there was no supernatural or divine intervention needed in the
> mechanical transition. But he did not prove there was no transition.
> 
> The only cause which supplies its own proof as first cause is the idea
> of differences and cognates of differences: negation, contradiction,
> not, etc. and that principle compounded in terms of itself. Neither
> Aristotle's prime mover unmoved nor god is proven of itself. Nor are
> evolution and the natural selection of species proven with respect to
> the categories and transitions between the categories.
> 

    This reminds me of my John 1:1 exegesis.  If the "word" at the
beginning was "not" then : In the beginning was the word (not), and
the word was God (because the word "not", i.e., the concept of
negation, was the first cause), and the word was with God ( "not(not)"
being the application of "not" as a predicate to "not" as the subject
affecting the negation of absolute nothing resulting in the set of
absolutely everything potentially possible, i.e., the set of all
energy).
     I haven't been following the development of your theory for a
while so I was wondering what, exactly, is a cognate of a difference? 
What is the difference between negation and contradiction with respect
to differences?  Are negation and contradiction cognates of difference
because they are means to different ends?  If so, then every
mathematical operator would also define a cognate of difference, i.e.,
+, -, /, *, etc. because they define HOW one thing is/can be different
to another.  Some of the parts of speech also serve this end. 
Adjectives would define how subjects (nouns and pronouns) are
different and adverbs would define how predicates (verbs) and
adjectives are different.  Prepositions would define the means of
relating these differences and conjunctions would be used to logically
combine them.


> The only thing proven of itself as the source and first cause of
> everything are differences and cognates of differences. And it is
> in terms of these elements that the categories of being are to be
> examined and explained in strict mechanical terms of one another.
> 
> Regards - Lester



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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