First Causes

Alex Green dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Sep 9 06:39:35 EST 2004

lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<413f2332.45504527 at netnews.att.net>...
> On 8 Sep 2004 06:54:47 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<413c719f.22600721 at netnews.att.net>...
> >> First Causes
> >>                                                   -----
>  [snip]
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >

I dont think you read any of the objections below in your previous

> >Could there be differences without space and time? Could there be
> >differences without two things to be different? Could there be
> >differences without a function to evaluate the difference?

Could there be differences without these things? If so, how?

> >
> >How can difference be primary when it is secondary to all these other
> >things?
> >If a difference is a thing in itself then why isn't the first cause
> >'things' not differences?

Unless a difference is just a single bit it must be composed of
things. It cannot be primary.

> >
> >Postmodernism is a version of the old intellectual game where you
> >'prove' black and white are the same by suggesting that white is 'only
> >known' by its difference from black and black is 'only known' by its
> >difference from white 'therefore' they are the same. Post modernists
> >got hold of this and realised that if it tricks 80% of people then
> >they could make careers out of it.
> >
> >Knowledge actually works by 'not different'. Only one thing is not
> >different from a particular thing but all other things are different
> >from it. Properties that are 'not different' across several things
> >provide a basis for classification. In fact not difference and
> >difference are just relations, in systems science 'contains' or 'does
> >not contain' is preferred to stress the generality of classification. 
> >It also points out the geometrical character of classification which
> >leads us seamlessly into maths and physics. Difference leads us
> >nowhere.
> Ah, yes, another guru of positivism. In positivism as in systems
> science there is no demonstrable generality of classification. And so
> like any good positivist, with no ability to demonstrate universality
> you just assume the generality of classification without the vaguest
> notion of how to prove it's true. Perhaps you would be so good as to
> let us in on the secret of how space and time can exist without
> differences, how black and white can exist, how systems science can
> exist without differences, and even how science can exist without
> differences. I can prove differences are universal. You can't prove
> the identity of anything is universal.

If you will answer my points about your statement first I will be only
too pleased to clarify my own position.

Best Wishes

Alex Green

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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