Bruno, you are an exception; "you think" and I think you are right. BUT: listen to the *"SCIENTISTS" who argue *in statement-style (such and such LAWS postulate, ...you cannot violate some other LAWS... not to mention the "IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT" argumentations in conventional scientific caves. Nobody admits agnosticism when it comes to math-supported figments. Then everybody has a firm and unshakable knowledge about his/her theory. I have to eliminate high blood pressure that does rise by statements like: *There is my brain and my environment, what else gives?* Not on this list! I like to go one tiny little step further than your agnosticism "we don't believe" - yet accept a "belief system" within which one thinks. It carries a vocabulary (semantics, if you like) and a worldview - even if agnostic. What I do not over-value is the 'human logic' (I hope I use it myself) definitely NOT governing Nature, not even if the majority observations in *certain *domains seem to identify(?)* 'laws'*, said sacrosanct in "science/technology" As I say: *A L M O ST* . Thanks for your remark John M
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > John, > > On 14 Jun 2012, at 23:05, John Mikes wrote: > > Dear Stathis > > let me try to explain myself in a less "1st p. vocabulary". As I > explained I carry an *'agnostic'* worldview, because over the past > millennia the information what humanity gathered about "the world" > increased steadily and we have so far no indication of having reached > omniscience. So I believe you when asking out loud: *"what ELSE is there?" > * and I have no answer of course. 2 trivial e.g.,-s: > # Before Volta there was no hint to 'electrical' (whatever that is) > phenomena but after his observation a branch of developing physics speaks a > lot of such. #The Flat Earth was also a notion (even the Bible speaks about > "the 4 corners" of it) and newer information developed a different > cosmology over the past centuries. > And so on, why not getting new information in *mentality* questions as > well? or factors (even so far unknown 'domains') that may influence > whatever we do know/think/choose? > > And may I throw back your term: the "choice" you ask about is a *PSEUDO - > choice*, not choosing from ANYTHING (haphazardly), but within the given > possibilities (potentials) - in the unlimited complexity of which > currently we know only a portion. More we know than yesterday or 1000 - > 10,000 years ago, but believably less than we *may* learn hereafter. > (I.e. in my agnosticism). > (And you left untouched my question about * W H O* is discussing with * > YOUR* brain - and how?) > > > > John, I think science is always agnostic. We just don't know the truth. > What we can do is to propose and develop plausibility feelings but nothing > more. I think Stathis was just reasoning in some determinist theory > background, like QM-without-collapse or comp. > > The art of science is the art of reasoning in theories, without ever > believing them. Only refuting them, sometimes, with luck. > > Bruno > > > > > > John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc. > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > <stath...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Stathis, semantics is a fundamental principle as long as we 'talk in >> wordly >> > terms'. Did you get a letter from God Almighty confirming that there is >> > nothing more FOR DECISIONMAKING than your brain and your ------------- >> > environment? Sorry to denigrate a term within your profession, but we >> ----- >> > > know close to nothing about mentality, thinking in topical terms, >> even ------> THAT DARN 'decisionmaking'. >> > It may not be strictly deterministic, we MAY have SOME choice (all these >> > words from the 'pseudo' domain) but how impressive those (so far >> unknowable) >> > domains(?) or factors do influence "our brain(?)" has not been known as >> of yesterday. >> > >> > (I am still hung up on your use of the number of people you are: >> > "...if my actions are determined by my brain and my environment..." >> > who is the 'you' discussing with 'your brain'? Are you compatible with >> you? >> > but that is an old hat). >> >> Other than brain and environment, what else is there? >> >> As for choice and determinism: I do exactly what I want to do, and if >> I wanted do something else, I would do that. I consider that choice, >> whether my behaviour is determined or random. In fact, I don't see >> what "choice" could possibly mean if not this. >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
