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
The Eye Of The Needle (temporarily Improved Italics)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael W. Pearson on July 21, 2003 22:14:37 UTC

MP: I think Kiersey elaborated some. Physical processes, you say? But you made the case earlier for the importance of abstract processes.

ML: You are right, in the end it's all a matter of the kind of abstractions you can come up with. M
(That's only part of your paragraph)

Mike Pearson: The point is, the universe is now coming up with these abstractions -- via me (and you...get it?)

Mike Pearson: And there has been a long-discussed dichotomy between mechanistic and organic processes. You might note that the human brain appears to consider various scenarios abstractly before proceeding physically. That is something the physical universe, as far as we know, does in such grand detail only when an apparatus is arranged for doing it -- such as an advanced brain.

Mike Levine: I guess it's really hard for the one-thing-at-a-time conscious mind to understand the everything-at-once world in which it is immersed, a world which includes the source of the one-thing-at-a-time thing itself.
(That's only part of your paragraph)

MP: Do you and I both really understand the one-thing-at-a-time world better? You seem to have an inkling of the everything-at-once world!

Mike Pearson: So we have a meta-universe of abstraction, mind, whose complexity enables us to depart from mechanistic energy pathways into the future and in fact, consider various possible pathways.

Mike Levine: "Exactly. But..." That's only part of your paragraph.

MP: If "But" were followed by something scientific, I would be clearer on this. I wonder...if you think I had that "exactly" right, why would I need your admonition to "become friends with that deity I ( Mike Levine ) mentioned above"
unless you are asserting I don't "make friends with the deity." What's up?
Are you saying you are the gatekeeper and that I am outside it? But I did not see evidence that you knew the things I wrote. Your statement that I am "exactly" right seems too polite. If I am partly mistaken, you might be shown to have rushed to endorse something in the interest of
appearing wise. I don't know if you can see what I mean here. Most folks on this forum would just say, "Whatever..." yet I guess you might know a thing or two about finesse, based on your invocations of the mystical deity during a volley about information theory.
Is the deity poetic? Does the deity inform us?

Thank you, Michael
Mike Pearson

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