Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
To Dr. Stafford And Friends

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mike Pearson on May 6, 2002 18:24:23 UTC

Your thoughtful comments will receive more
attention soon
Dr. Dick wrote:
(Mike's) comment #2 I do not understand"

which was (one of several lines of inquiry):
"2) our thoughts are all fiction; the real business is the physical processes which spawn and assess our thoughts to determine which will be sent to archives...which will further shape the material universe "

To further elaborate -- this is central in the only science fiction book I've written and I won't tell it quite all...

Elaborate: The content of thought can be called an
off shoot of physical vapor from breathing, it changes shape and dissipates quickly... The neulogical processes of thought are chemical processes coded by DNA...a longterm development almost as old as the operating physical laws...maybe a little newer.
So, thought's status at first seems between the "changeable shape of vapor"
and "the operating physical laws of universe."

ALSO...thought can serve to influence how humans change the landscape -- make deliberate new combinations in the manner of DNA....yet thought is also capable of preferring a Spiderman movie
to studying ecology. (aside: Our country spent $110 million over the weekend on Spiderman. What if we spent a similar amount iin that time to study ecology?)
So thought can be silly or serious, and either way is influencing the landscape. And serious CAN be badly false while silliness CAN point to truth.
So that leaves thought as no sure guide ...even Ptolemy's system was not "truth."
All our engineering specifications might be revised some day. Perhaps all thought is fiction, even our most sure facts, for they reflect our understanding of a context, and the context will change as we learn more.

That was a try.
Sorry I Kantolfir2 more !

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins