ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (11/21/85)
>The fact that Charles (I repeat for the n-hundredth time!) refuses to >demonstrate how the brain is any different in methodology than anything else >in the universe (other than believing that it has to be in order to get his >conclusions to be true) shows whose court the ball is in. - Rich Rosen Even physics gave up on the cause-and-effect methodology you espouse long ago! And biology (also a legitimate science) has found it essential to enlarge its methodology way beyond that of physics and chemistry: If mechanistic [is] defined in terms of simpleminded mechanics, and more specifically in a reductionist-determinist manner, then I would say biology is creating a world view that is in conflict with any physicalist world view that ignores all that is characteristic of the world of life and ignores everything not encountered in the world of inanimate objects... There is no hope for a truly comprehensive philosophy of science until the autonomous features of living organisms are truly recognized. - Ernst Mayr "Evolution at the Crossroads", MIT Press, 1985 Teleological laws, autonomy and perception are several of the characteristics that distinguish biological laws from those of chemistry and physics. Rich, you are free to believe that the world behaves according to whatever laws you wish; however, your worldview is absolutely in conflict with EVERYTHING I have encountered in the recent writings of highly respected members in the field of biology. I've noticed you are willing to accept the findings of these people when it comes to debunking the silly theories of the Creation Scientists. Yet oddly enough, you totally ignore the theories of modern biology when they debunk your position. Do you ever read? Since you will not be either scientific or logical, and since you will furthermore not admit that your arguments are based on pure faith (which Charles has the honesty to admit, when required), I wonder why you even bother to submit such rubbish to net.philosophy. Now the brain has yet more unusual properties than most biological phenomena -- for instance, consciousness. Yet there you are, insisting that it must be explicable by 17th century scientific laws! You might as well be telling us that the brain can be explained by Aristotelian physics.. A world based on the laws that you prefer would be a most dreary and mechanical place indeed. Beep beep! -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/23/85)
Michael Ellis acting "grown up": > Do you ever read? > > Since you will not be either scientific or logical, and since you will > furthermore not admit that your arguments are based on pure faith (which > Charles has the honesty to admit, when required), I wonder why you even > bother to submit such rubbish to net.philosophy. Michael Ellis acting "robotic" and predictably deterministic: > Beep beep! > A world based on the laws that you prefer would be a most dreary > and mechanical place indeed. Sorry you feel that way and choose to invent another one of your own design that you won't find so dreary. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr