Science and language.

Fresco, it's good to see you back and speaking in covert language. <smile>

Let me see if I understand this. You are saying that all is measurement and language is the prerequisite, ergo, the laws of nature are simply man's determinant via the written or spoken word, right?

Sounds a lot like the concept of the observer-centered universe.

But "a function of the particular physiology and neural circuitry of homo sapiens" can predict motions in the "external" world and often change them.

BM

Aha! Andy. I think you have captured Fresco's philosophy and psychology.

Good to see you, Satt, and that child inside. <smile>

Re: Science and language.


Your description of the laws of nature started well as being language driven, but then you placed the description back into the world on the grounds that the language users have worldly physiology. So you ended up where you started out. You imply that physiology is not language driven but also state that the laws of nature are language driven.

If we are trapped within the limits of a minor ball-game wouldn't we naturally go in for some barber shop musings.How does one define "minor","ball-game" and "barber shop musings".Aren't you being a little emotive in your choice of words?One could say that the manifestoes of the two major parties at election time are "barber shop musings" and that life is a cabaret old son and it's a pretty big game to each of us.

JJ et al

Yes of course "physiology" and "neurology " begs the question....but let us consider such terminology to be incomplete attempts at description of one side of the observer-observed interface wherein "causality" becomes problematic by virtue of its deconstruction...

Spendius

This ID reference above could indeed be considered to be an "emotive" reaction to current pedagogic trends in the US. As far I am concerned
the "probability arguments" which are given in support of ID have about as much status as the ancient" angels dancing on the pin head" discussions....an observer independent "existence" is assumed a priori by such ID advocates !

Without retracing old ground covered in former threads of mine, let me merely point out that attempts have been made to transcend the "ball park" (by genetic epistemologists such as Piaget) or at least to map its limits (by philosophers of language such as Wittgenstein), but it seems to me that the barber shop remains full of what Gurdjieff might have delighted in calling "sleepers".

My point was that if you say that the world is language driven, it did not seem right for you to say 'except for physiology'.

JJ

I dont seemed to have used the word "except"

I have edited above for clarification.

Letty...touches on the essence of this...in the beginning, there was interaction (which for we cognitive beings is refined as the "the word" or discourse).

Satt

Sorry for not responding above...yes internal states can affect external states and vice versa ...neither has "independent existence" except perhaps by the mental sleight of hand of arbitrarily delimiting statehood for particular current purposes.....such is the starting point for re-valuation of "science as control" from an ecological standpoint.

My word, Fresco. How come Andy and I didn't get acknowledged?

You got something against us 'Mericans? <smile>

No, you never 'said' it either.
But my point still stands.

fresco-

Someone used the word "dirty" to refer to certain types of chat lines.The same poster had broken down the ladies into groups which included whores and slappers.I reminded the poster that I do not recognise such concepts.

To recognise them is a form of ID.It seems to me as a scientific design supporter that I can't.There is no moral fall back position for SDers.What goes on on the chat lines goes on on the chat lines.An SDer may view that negatively but only as a strategy.He may do the opposite,again as a strategy.Not from any moral position.So someone who claims to be an SDer cannot find the activities discussed on chat lines "dirty".To the extent that h/she does find them "dirty",and they are often quite out there I assume as there is no reason for their existence otherwise,h/she is not a true SDer.

There are other important reasons for not underestimating the strength of the ID position and they are mainly sociological and psychological.

The answers science gives are tentative and subject to modification and some socialisations find that unsatisfactory.They might prefer that the final arbiter is unknown rather than being the Big Chief of a retinue of scientific advisers.At least the unknown arbiter can be reinterpreted which is unlikely in the case of the Big Chief.

Spendius,

One 0f the central characteristics (or vices ?) of "cognition" is "forward planning" and I believe that it is this characteristic which is projected onto "the world" which gives the psychological basis for ID. However, as some writers have pointed out, homo sapiens on a perpetual control trip and an associated awareness of its own antithesis.. his own inevitable mortality...is unlikely to be a reliable participant in the analysis of "life within a timeless system". I therefore note your psychological and social "reasons" for the belief in ID, but reject them as parochial, simplistic and somnabulistic impediments to epistemology.

fresco-

I fear you did not read me carefully enough.I was referring to the underestimation of the ID position.
I am wary of underestimating anything.One cannot dismiss the ID position with a few well chosen words.Those who try to do,for whatever reason,will likely hand them the spoils.

You didn't answer the main point though.It is that anything not specifically proscribed in the vast shelves of law books cannot be considered "dirty" or "rude" or "disgusting" by an SDer and that they can by an IDer.I'm assuming that "dirty","rude" and "disgusting" are value judgements implying condemnation.Are you really unshockable as an SDer needs to be to have real credibility.

You also fail to address my point about which of the two choices is best able to protect us from the Big Chief.

Spendius,

In my mind I am not making a political statement but a philosophical one.
The questioning of "control" undermines the status of "design"

i.e.I think I have answered your points by attempting to transcend them.

1. I consider ID a psychological crutch or opiate (not the equivalent of disgusting)

2. My philosophical move away from anpthropocentrism makes "our protection" meaningless even though as soon as "I" is evoked in me it suffers from the social conditioning which seeks self-protection.

It is not clear whether your term "Big Chief" refers to Bush or "God" but either way these points should cover.

fresco-

I had Big Brother in mind.

There is no fall back position in scientific design.One could arrive at BB by scientific logic in the same way that civil rights are being eroded through the scientific logic of counter terrorism.

God can be reinterpreted by theologians and Mr Bush reinterpreted by elections and lobbying.

The practicalities of the case are what matter.The philosophy can be plausibly made to fit either sides's case. I couldn't be sure that the leading lights of ID really believe in it. The argument in the US is,to me,not really about principles but about ways of proceeding into the future.

I think Gellner is right to say that the only reasonable attitude is one of doubt rather than dogma. While I lean towards SD I respect the IDers and what they are attempting to maintain their way of life which they obviously feel is superior despite psychological crutches and opiates which SDers have as well.

Do you think it is an argument about who has the best crutches and opiates. Choral evensong or TV game show. Togetherness or loneliness. Suppose a survey showed a marked increase in the use of pharmaceuticals in SD areas over ID areas. Or suicide and abortion rates. Or a whole range of phenomena.

Philosophy is in danger of becoming irrelevant if it doesn't address practicalities and customs and traditions of integrated geographical groups are very important practicalities whether they are opiates or not. We cannot wish them away because if we could we would wish the mullahs away as well.

It certainly is an interesting discussion and I have learned a lot from it.At the outset I was a flat out SDer but now I have thought more about it I'm not at all sure. I see discussions about the existence of God as fruitless but not those about how to manipulate the two beliefs for economic and military purposes.I presume you wish us to stay strong and wealthy and fairly free. I think that saying the best route to those is ID or SD is a belief.

away two months from a2k and I stumble again across Gurdjieff?

fresco, my dear laddie, what am I going to do with you?

lets get to the real point of all this...... is consciousness derived from language or the other way around?

the first act of consciousness is ...I.

now how did that happen? as soon as consciousness occurs, I leaps in and starts differentiating and naming things....not I.... a bit Aristotelian perhaps, nontheless its how we do it.

so where did I come from?

christ, even my mom don't know