Ourcellves? (Identity)

by GateKeeper @, Thursday, April 10, 2014, 15:53 (3640 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Thursday, April 10, 2014, 15:59

I take physical as whether it can respond to cause and effect.
> 
I see Both (yours and mine) definitions as "limiting" and may force us to a particular conclusion. If the two converge on the same it may be telling us something.-> -> That reality is more complex than any Law is fairly understandable.
> 
> People I think get confused by deterministic world views. While effects are to some degree predictable from causes ... the causes are complex (universal if you like) and the operators (Laws) are incomplete.
> 
>true.--> For me if the universe is alive/conscious, then the distinction between animate and inanimate becomes moot. 
> -
calling it "mute" releases responsibility for drawling a conclusion to me. So I am not sure of the intentions here. I am only interested in if it may be, or it may not be, based on what we know today. With just small steps "off the curve" that is. -So Flip your notion. First what is the data. Then What is/may the data telling us? Is it more probable that the universe may be alive or is more probable that the universe is not alive? based on what we know.-
 
> If your definition for emergence is processes with feedback .. fair enough.
> 
> But emergence simply reduces to something I can't predict easily.-right, something not easily predicted. Thats mine too.-I am a simple fellow. Words just mean standard def's that we see and/or may use in an area. I don't redefine words. Emergence for me is just the definition used. Something that we did not predict. Not that it wasn't there. Like the first pyramid "bent". -"looping" is a play on words. "loop job", which I am. Or, First I look, Then I describe what I think it is. Based on measurements. Not what "I think it is". Some parts will be dualist and some parts will be monist. -And we loop back and forth because neither alone answers what we see. But they both do when use together. -to me, Some people need to "fix" themselves in philosophy. For me, Philosophy should "be fixed" in what we know if we are going to judge people by their philosophy. "what we know" is not a fixed point.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum