IUBio

First Causes

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Tue Sep 7 15:19:55 EST 2004


On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:06:12 -0400, Traveler <traveler at nospam.com> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <413d7c50$0$62362$5fc3050 at dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, "JPL
>Verhey" <matterDELminds at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dan michaels" <feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>>news:8d8494cf.0409062130.a4e0845 at posting.google.com...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> The other equally ridiculous idea that you left out is the fairly
>>> recent idea that nothing exists i nthe unvierse without mind making it
>>> so, and that the mind is somehow wrapped up in quantum physics. Some
>>> such gooblediegook.
>>
>>Yet this notion is absolutely correct in the sense that any conscious 
>>experience - from thoughts and emotions to objects seen around you in the 
>>world "out there" including stars and galaxies - are all brain process - 
>>out of convenience called mind - and occuring within your own skull.
>
>I thought that your own skull was also "out there." IOW, if nothing
>exists but what's in your mind, does your mind also exist within your
>mind? This is the sort of self-referential problems associated with
>extreme solipsism.

Well, the mind is also located within the mind as the result of
differential brain processes defining the mind to begin with.

>As an aside, this is the same sort of illogical self-referential
>nonsense that Godel used to come up with his incompleteness theorem.
>Which really is not a theorem since it is obviously hogwash. That a
>raving lunatic like Godel (a time travel believer) was elevated to the
>status of a god and worshipped by so many "bright" folks is a sad
>commentary on the sorry state of modern scientific philosophy and of
>science in general. Underneath, it's just a house of cards.
>
>Louis Savain
>
>Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html


As an aside, stop me if you've heard this one: Bill Clinton, Raquel
Welch, and god are in a lifeboat and Clinton turns to the others and
asks "So, which one of you is god?"  - Revelations 38:24:36

Regards - Lester



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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