Re: Marriage is under fire!!

From: Jonathan Kirwan (jkirwan_at_easystreet.com)
Date: 08/15/04 

Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 06:52:11 GMT

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:12:33 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

>Actually, that was kinda my point. You can't define it in clear, objective
>language.

There are those working to change this, regarding consciousness. I believe
there are regular world meetings on this subject in Phoenix (if memory serves)
and sometimes elsewhere, in fact, trying to deal with this issue with precision.

But the fact that we don't know everything today doesn't bother me at all.
We're just human, after all. I don't think you can conclude anything from our
lack of knowledge. Only perhaps from what little hard-won science knowledge
we've managed to accrue.

>According to what's-his-name's philosophy of deterministic
>randomness, that means there can't even _be_ any such thing, which is
>patently ludicrous.

Some comments:

(1) We don't have "what's-his-name" here to make the arguments and you have no
position (in my mind) to put words into the mouth of anyone other than yourself.

(2) Even if you were right in interpreting what some person might say about
this subject on the basis of some philosophy, it's irrelevant to science fact.
The force of human opinion has no effect on Nature.

and,

(3) Well, Rich, we read from great minds... not for what they say they
believe... but to learn how they think about the world. Every great person (and
this means the rest of us lesser people, too) believes a great many wrong
things. But great minds remain worth your study.

So I've no real idea what point you are reaching with this comment.

Jon