From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:11:24 GMT
Ian,
Ian said:
Who in his right mind has been working on "perpetual motion machines" - that
paints a pejorative "mad professor" charicature of scientists, just as your
"intelligent design" theory paints a "bible thumping conservative"
caricature of others. (I blogged more recently about the intelligent design
creationist debate.)
Scott:
Someone who isn't aware that the laws of physics say that a perpetual motion
machine is impossible might work on one. Likewise, a geometry student who
tries to trisect an angle using only a straightedge and compass is one who
doesn't know that it has been proven impossible. Now my arguments for why
one can't have a Darwinian account of consciousness, and therefore of
language, are not as easily communicable as a geometrical proof. But they
convinced me. It is basically a matter of realizing that what we call the
material world is a product of perception. Hence materialists are trying to
explain perception in terms of its products. So it is like Baron Munchhausen
claiming that he can lift himself off the ground by pulling on his own hair.
I'm not sure what you mean by "your" (that is, my) intelligent design theory
painting a caricuture. The bible-thumpers are those that deny evolution,
which ID-ists do not. But the more I think about it, the less I want to call
my theory ID-like. I reject the basis of ID, the presumed calculation of
probabilities, that according to their calculations, evolution without
design is intractable. Darwinists, though, base their theories on the
assumption that the probabilities are tractable. No one really knows, which
is why both theories amount to arm-waving. (Though I suppose ultimately that
is the case with all metaphysical theories.) In any case, the only
commonality between my theory and ID is that neither are materialist.
Ian said:
Scinetist / theologian / philosopher its the same question ... "how could
language come about from a world without language".
Lingustics again
Scott:
Hence the gist of my metaphysics: to reject the
language/world-without-language distinction. Everything is semiotic; our
senses scan signifiers, not signifieds.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:15:17 GMT