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
Your Thesis On This Is Illogical, Dr. Dick!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Whittier on April 25, 2003 04:37:04 UTC

Dr. Dick wrote:
"Human beings cannot even solve the problem of walking across the room by consciously deciding which muscles to contract and when. Anyone who tried to do so would be thought an idiot. Why do they think their mental image of the world was achieved by some conscious logical procedure?"

Dick, whenther you accept it or not my mental image of the world has in some measure been achieved by conscious logical procedures.
It was a breakthrough which I achieved in part
as a result of reading, in my youth, science fiction stories about robots. (How could fiction be conceived without a conscious logical procedure, by the way?)
Admittedly, your point would be valid if you only stated that our native condition is to run our minds the same way we run our bodies -- namely, to let the body's automatic functions
have their dominion. But you have in no way shown that, knowing our native tendency, we are unable to organize our own mental image of hte world acccording to conscious logical procedures.

However, when Dr. Dick says,"I have discovered a specific way to create a coherent illusion which will reproduce any random collection of data conceivable; a procedure which will provide an internally consistent set of entities and rules which will be totally and completely consistent with the data on which it is based". A Dewey decimal system of organizing absolutely any collection of data so to speak. And, just as an aside, it turns out that this illusion must obey most all of the accepted laws of physics" . . . then I am not necessarily denying that thesis. In fact, it seems to run counter to the former one I just quoted. I just don't think you know very much more than I do as a result
... if anything.

Have some pie -- Mike

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 1994-2023 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