PAGE2GO2 HOME | INTERNET NEWS

LeighExchange - Free Advertising Network Stock Research at Internet Speed Need Money Easy and Quick?

Re: Emergence vs. reductionism, Laughlin/Hawking?

 List
Subject: Re: Emergence vs. reductionism, Laughlin/Hawking?
Poster: rnormanr_s_norman@_comcast.net
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:20:50 -0700
Related Postings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
On 22 Feb 2007 14:49:36 -0800, "Mitchell Coffey" wrote:


>On Feb 11, 4:10 pm, r norman wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2007 12:47:36 -0800, "*Hemidactylus*"
>> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Hierarchical organization in groups of animals (known colloquially by
>> >the nominalist pseudo-labels "human" and "canine") easily break down
>> >to its basis at the quantum level. It's all atoms, light waves and
>> >sound waves. Nothing more. Talk of innate behavior and learned
>> >behavior and "brains" and social dynamics is mere nonsense foisted
>> >upon us by emergent neo-vitalists. If you can't take it down to modern
>> >physics you're talking gibberish.
>
>> I'm with you all the way on this one. John has already confessed to
>> being mostly empty space.
>
>If so he has, 'tis no slick cause for quick dismissal: As I understand
>it, most space is of the empty kind, and most empty space is filled
>with dark matter. Science and metaphysics therefore merge, the sum to
>be found in that much-misunderstood writ of holy wisdom:
>
> Yesterday upon the stair
> I met a man who wasn't there.
> He wasn't there again today
> Oh how I wish he'd go away.

Sounds holistic to me! The being of nothingness.

And any cause is slick cause for quick dismissal of John.

 

Page2Go2.com is not responsible for content of this message.