First Causes

Alex Green dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Sep 16 08:18:03 EST 2004

lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41486134.50044038 at netnews.att.net>...
> On 15 Sep 2004 04:54:32 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
I am going to snip all the first part of this reply because I am
focussing on just this bit. If people would like to see the wider
context please read the earlier post.
> >If your 'difference' is a phenomenon then it is things themselves
> >arranged in space-time and a highly misleading label for this. If it
> >is an operation then it has a meaning that is similar to the ordinary
> >meaning of the term and it involves the encoding and transformation of
> >data.
> Such things as phenomena, things themselves, operations, encoding, and
> transformation are only universally definable in terms of differences
> and differences between differences etc. You seem to have some idea
> that these kinds of things can be defined independently and exist
> somewhere in space or time. But they're really only assumptions to the
> extent they have no demonstrable universality.
> >Is 'difference' an operation? If not how does it operate?(!)
> I know I included a comment here on the exclusive-or which seems to
> have gone missing. The point is that differences are both material
> circumstances and sentient functions. In both cases they imply
> contradiction. Material differences are simply differences wherever
> and however they occur. 

But how are these 'differences' determined? If they are just things in
space-time then why not say this? If they are operations that actually
test the separation of things and return values such as 'separated' or
'not separated' then please explain how this would work. If they are a
conjunction of these two types of thing then please describe how the
two things are related in the term 'difference'. Preferably without
saying that they are related by differences or differences of

There is a real danger here of your argument being tautological. You
are proposing that all things are in fact differences and in support
of this just stating endlessly that differences are all things.  When
asked whether differences are things themselves you reply that they
are, when asked if things in space-time are differences you respond
that they are. When asked if differences are operations you respond
that they are. This would be a huge breakthrough if you could
differentiate 'difference' from 'all things'.

If your 'difference' is not a separate category of thing from 'all
things' then it is of no more use to us than 'all things' being the
same as this.

> Sentient differences, however, also represent
> results of differences between differences and that mechanism
> compounded in terms of itself. 

If you could explain one instance of 'difference' without saying that
it is the result of difference I might be convinced.  There are joke
post-modernist software products that can construct arguments such as
you have been using, where everything turns back on itself in an
avalanche of deconstruction, and I am beginning to suspect, rather
belatedly, that you are applying one of these to our posts.

Best Wishes

Alex Green

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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