Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/12/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:15:08 GMT
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:10:12 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>Albert wrote:
>>
>> It is true that mind is not a separate substance. Mind in an emergent
>> phenomenon dependent on the physical substrate of the the bloody goo.
>> You destroyed the mind when you killed the goo.
>
>Thank you.
>
>As to emergent phenomena, I am of two "minds" on that issue. When I am
>in a bad mood I think of emergence as a fancy way of saying "And then a
>miracle happens".
>
>Emergence is a handy dandy excuse to use when one does not know how to
>explicitly reduce a complicated something to its basic compoenents and
>interactions. If one cannot make the reduction, then one sets up
>postulates concerning the more complicated thing and reasons from there.
Kinda like the dots.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|