Are you suggesting that I am not... readable????HAR....well... my style comes from "thinking" in "things"....Concepts and References.... not in "words and abstractions".....mostly ruminations and phantasms of the "imagination".... tropical fish... words and abstractions are? HAR
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:20:41 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > And he was readable Nom! > > On 27 Nov, 16:34, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Locke > > left room for something more speculative than the empirical. / Archytas > > > > Smart fellow, that Locke.... > > - show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:31:09 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > I don't go with Craig on the 'answer' - but we don't know what matter > > > or energy is - we construct notions of such in the present including > > > the notion some 'stuff' is older than us. Whitehead's 'occasions of > > > experience' perhaps. > > > We sidestep a lot of ontology with method. If you waft a bit of lead > > > carbonate in a test tube in a Bunsen flame for a while it will turn > > > yellow. That is, on Earth in normal lab conditions. You could check > > > this out if arsed. A blind man would need a sighter he could trust. > > > If I draw two line on a flip chart, one slightly shorter than the > > > other and get a collaborator to point to the short one and say it is > > > the longest - most will follow the lie and point to the wrong one. A > > > ruler becomes the arbiter. Much of science is about keeping cheating > > > slackers and dumb sheep behaviour out. Particles are just accounting > > > devices and theories accounting systems. Science likes to mark to > > > what it posits as reality - unlike banks. What that reality is - fuck > > > knows - but just hold the top of this Leiden Jar Nom - the shock will > > > only be nominal (or Nominal's?). Make me a radio based on some goon's > > > ideas about health giving crystals - or try Wireless World (I was once > > > an addict). Tropical fish realism works - but this doesn't negate > > > what Craig has to say and neither does it not working for me. Locke > > > left room for something more speculative than the empirical. > > > > > On 26 Nov, 18:49, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The way that it makes sense to me is that energy is only the > experience > > > of > > > > matter interacting with matter, and matter is only experience > divorced > > > from > > > > any given participant. To you, your life is images, feelings, > thoughts. > > > To > > > > me is it a body or brain - materials having an effect on other > materials > > > in > > > > the world. > > > > > > Our idea of energy and information are the two greatest obstacles to > our > > > > understanding. We have objectified them as existential > > > pseudo-substances, > > > > but I think that the reality is that energy and information are > nothing > > > but > > > > arbitrarily depersonalized sensory-motor experience. Information is > > > sensory > > > > input, energy is motor output, each of which define and constrain > each > > > > other.. Period. > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:36:54 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > I have a "teasing" question for the both of you....Socrates and > > > > > Archytas....are Energy and Matter (interchangeable and mutable as > they > > > may > > > > > be)... both "physical"... or are they just "conceptual"....same > > > question > > > > > put differently ... are Energy and Matter an "idea" or are they > an > > > actual > > > > > "real" thing?....Sometimes I think "scientists" get lost in their > > > > > "abstractions"..... of formulas and mathematics...theories and > > > > > hypotheses....Me... I think that Energy and Matter are Objective, > > > actually > > > > > "there" and "real"....but I'm just a lowly lay-person.... > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 8, 2012 11:16:00 AM UTC-4, > > > socr...@bezeqint.netwrote: > > > > > > >> Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. > > > > >> =. > > > > >> The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton. > > > > >> Question. > > > > >> Where did electron and proton come from? > > > > >> Answer. > > > > >> Electron and proton came from big bang. > > > > >> Question. > > > > >> Where the did big bang come from? > > > > >> Answer. > > > > >> The big bang was created when all electrons and protons > > > > >> and all another particles were pressed into a singular point. > > > > >> ==.. > > > > >> If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are an ignorant > man. > > > > >> =. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/V76CaeqdHhkJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
