|
 Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.
Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
 Conditionality and existence 
#23075164 - 04/02/16 12:05 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Supposing all is conditional and conditioned in existence, what is this we speak of?
Often we use metaphors.
The old philosophers who were not just fools,
said being was like fire, like water,
Or like earth or like air.
Some said it was "love" and like "strife".
Today we aren't less full of our philosophical metaphors.
Saying that nature is "somewhat" mechanical or "like" a machine, or that it is literally a machine, is a modern person's theme sometimes. What does this notion mean?
I'm not sure it is even clear, and by the nature of this discussion, I think anyone who thinks this would have some burden of argument to be clear about where an analogy begins and ends, but maybe it is something possible to talk about in general way through relating to this notion in a way other than just argument.
What is a mechanism? Here is a routine definition: A machine is "an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task."
I think it is clear that a mechanism is first of all a power complex, and that is how I understand it. Perhaps someone would be used to calling this a "drive", in a theoretical sense. But it is easy to rationalize.
A machine or mechanism in nature seems to me to be something a little more unclear, insofar as in just thinking of it, and understanding it, in an act of knowing, humankind imagines being situated in the driver seat, or in hand, and in control of the machine or mechanism. I would note that it is difficult to grok how automatic this general orientation is. A mechanism always "works" a certain way, however it may be theoretically or practically conceived.
In broad association, this ambiguity is what I see in a mechanism, first of all. I will confess it doesn't seem to me fit to describe nature as a power complex, or as mechanism. It is a little too human. A mechanism in general is just too clearly about mankind's covert ascriptions of control over things, to be convincing as an analogy for existence itself. Nor does this seem to be a runaway vehicle though, or a way of being on the wrong end of. I can see this theme is nonetheless important to many people today.
I suppose we could all argue about this back and forth, on one side and the other, but I'd say I want to reconcile with this theme in a general way, and maybe this is where a lot of my own arguments admittedly lie.
Close to my perspective, is how so much is conditional in our existence. We seem to indeed be layers upon layers of gross and subtle conditioning, through and through. It would make sense for me to say that everything is conditional. But I don't know exactly what this general conditionality is in itself, or fundamentally. I don't know the unity of all things, being one thing or kind of conditional thing.
I wonder if people may think in a broad way, a mechanical view ascribes "conditionality" of existence in one sense. I think something is gathered in one way, and more poetically impressed. Being a machine would say that what something does, is above all certainly conditioned. To be a machine would be a very conditional and conditioned way of being, and I see how impressing that may be someone's point.
But it seems to me to be unrealistic to just find meanings in associations like this, because just as much, what a mechanism is on the other side of things, humankind's general ascription of fundamental control over things. Isn't this too obvious?
I would note how appropriate this seems to me to describe alot of philosophy nonetheless. Much of western humanitie' notions are about standing on one side of things. Take it one way or another, but this is why I think this way of thinking is failing though. I think this is one side of the coin in view, when you need to look at both ascriptions, heads and tails. I don't think as a whole, nature is something you want to be on one side of and not on the other, as fitting as this may be to impress.
Could it be that what is above all conditional is conditional, and therefore something other than "mechanical" according to dominant conceptions? I know light and dark... yin and yang, but by that token what is the conditionality of conditionality?
I find this guy very difficult but maybe some people here would like him. The stoics said it is best to be like physis or nature. Maybe one way to put it, is it possible to be "like" nature? How is it possible?
Quote:
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.
Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved.
Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.
Epictetus
Edited by Kurt (04/02/16 09:15 PM)
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: Kurt]
#23076120 - 04/02/16 04:22 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"Saying that nature is "somewhat" mechanical or "like" a machine, or that it is literally a machine, is a modern person's theme sometimes. What does this notion mean?"
DNA/RNA and the performance of biological evolution.
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
 falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,043
Last seen: 5 hours, 59 minutes
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly]
#23076204 - 04/02/16 04:49 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
As those have become better understood, they have become something that can be manipulated.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: falcon]
#23076245 - 04/02/16 05:03 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In May 2010 they showed that they were able to synthesize the 1,078,809 base pair genome of Mycoplasma mycoides from scratch and transplant it into a Mycoplasma capricolum cell; the new genome then took over the cell and the new organism multiplied. The new organism was nicknamed Synthia.
Venter hopes to eventually synthesize bacteria to manufacture hydrogen and biofuels, and also to absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly]
#23076512 - 04/02/16 06:29 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
In May 2010 they showed that they were able to synthesize the 1,078,809 base pair genome of Mycoplasma mycoides from scratch and transplant it into a Mycoplasma capricolum cell; the new genome then took over the cell and the new organism multiplied. The new organism was nicknamed Synthia.
Venter hopes to eventually synthesize bacteria to manufacture hydrogen and biofuels, and also to absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
Your anagrams are showing OC. You were in love with this mad scientist then, as now. Yeah, he hopes to eventually fuck over the earth with his GMO bullshit synthesized bacteria released on the gulf oil spill. Fucking eugenicist gone wrong.
--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
|
Lol I'm not a eugenicist, I would like kids one day but I don't want to start donating my sperm to randoms.
You can thank recombinant DNA technology for things such as the insulin we use to treat diabetics.
  
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,043
Last seen: 5 hours, 59 minutes
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly] 1
#23076727 - 04/02/16 07:28 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
The mastery of the mechanisms of nature, do you consider that outside of nature?
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,367
Last seen: 42 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly]
#23076770 - 04/02/16 07:37 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Neither nor and the face of everything that is not shawn upon by light...is indeed black..and that is the two faces of the coin(Janus).. The Violin..or even Black Metal Hair bands...that conditions the Spine tot he Fruitful behaviour of everything..leaders are not less than two..and when they are less than three that are not anything..and in this mode do i descrive the novelty of the black lodge..in and coming from the night sky at night to terrify the needs of everyones body..or the gaming seed of a relinquished everything..to the Eve..and Evil of the time of day..which is at a precise mechanism..but it is indeed that which defines the system..as black is nothing and so everything has always it..it is rare and rich in greed to include gold to black..but that is their very signature of Karats..as atoms and members of the Holy Union of The OC..which is a Sacred Union indeed..the black sash exemplifies the magisty..of the Hither to
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,367
Last seen: 42 minutes, 7 seconds
|
|
So subjective conditions are only on a Rare precipice..and the idea alone stirs a certain stigma, that indeed is of the gel..or Oil..of the blacklodge itself..which is what we give..in our mind to the magick of the Day!
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: Kurt] 1
#23077064 - 04/02/16 08:48 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said:
Supposing all is conditional and conditioned in existence, what is this we speak of?
….
Saying that nature is "somewhat" mechanical or "like" a machine, or that it is literally a machine, is a modern person's theme sometimes. What does this notion mean?
The notion means the universe is presumed to be understandable, as opposed to either random or insane.
In the case of people the notion means people are presumed to be understandable, and predictable.
So then we get all these theories Freud, Jung …. then BF Skinner who took the mechanical view to extremes. Skinner figured out some neat stuff (training pigeons), but was totally one dimensional. The Rogerians went to the opposite extreme. They all had theories. The greatest hypnotist of all time, Milton Erickson, however said, “I develop a new theory for every patient”.
So only he was free of the mechanicalness of theory. Free of attempting to fit reality onto his Procrustean bed
The world is infinite and by definition theories are simplifications.
To describe something we must be separate from it.
Try explaining eating an apple while doing it.
So ’truth’ always escapes all metaphysical conceptions.
To explain silence is to destroy it.
Mind wants to explain the universe - it asks: “Is the universe mechnical or not? Are people mechnical or not?”
Space contains all objects, but no object contains all space.
Space is subtler than objects, Space is more abstract than objects.
Space is primary, it makes existence of objects possible.
Awareness contains all thoughts, but no thought contains awareness.
Awareness is subtler than thoughts, Awareness is more abstract than thoughts.
Awareness is primary, it allows perception of thoughts.
No matter how much pain we might feel awareness is unaffected.
No matter how much joy we might feel awareness is unaffected.
Mind which is thought based wants to use thought to explain awareness,
but that is putting the cart before the horse. Mind wants to explain everything, but it’s tool is not subtle enough.
Silence is the background to sound.
All sounds arise from and return to silence.
Thoughts arise from silent awareness and subside into silent awareness.
That which is secondary does not have the capability to generate itself.
The mind does not ‘like’ this.
In-finite abstract silent sizeless colorless weightless awareness cannot be
de-fined meaningfully by dualistic based thought as either ‘mechanical or not mechanical’ or in terms of any other opposites applicable to concrete manifestations and phenomenon.
Awareness like space has no size. It is amusing that space has no size, but it can’t get outside itself to measure itself! Likewise time has no duration as it can’t get outside itself to measure itself! We all think too much, these truths are obvious. (Only meditation trains awareness itself).
So whether we want to consider the universe as aware or not, the fact remains that it can not be defined in terms of any of our opposites. (Because even if the universe itself is not considered to be aware, awareness happens as part of it, and it can’t be defined).
It is said that a pivotal erroneous conception that humans have concerns the nature of the ’self’, and that we objectify ourselves. But that is another subject.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: falcon]
#23077131 - 04/02/16 09:04 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
falcon said:
The mastery of the mechanisms of nature, do you consider that outside of nature?
No because humans are a part of nature too, we can synthesize things but the original organic materials we use to make them come from natural sources.
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,043
Last seen: 5 hours, 59 minutes
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly]
#23077159 - 04/02/16 09:11 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Do you think it's necessary condition for something to be considered mechanical in nature that the mechanism is understood?
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: falcon]
#23077174 - 04/02/16 09:14 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
A concept doesn't have to be entirely understood in order to make predictions about it.
Math isn't perfectly understood but it's been pretty helpful to us so far.
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.
Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly]
#23077549 - 04/02/16 11:33 PM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
The question of identity is another story... I would say so. I always think of Aristotle, in considering natural principle. Spatiotemporality is the modern philosophy, of course and I appreciate that. We do somewhat still ask ourselves the question - what is nature?
Nature is physis, as the greeks said. It still is. We know the idea of nature we go out to, or experience. But we can rightly say the horizon of meaning of "nature" to the greeks, was literally (semantically) physis. So what I basically mean is that Aristotle wrote his treatise on "physics", as we tend to interpret it, it actually meant a treatise on "nature".
Aristotle is out of vogue in at least one way, but in our essential involvement with the world we bear some consideration to the essential ascription of mechanisms. In Aristotle, even in our most general and universal concepts, we follow some principle of contradiction (or non-contradiction), to find a provision of meaning in things. This is why we deal in these terms. Aristotle distinguished "nature" (physis), from technical "craftsmanship" (techne)
The meaning of physis as nature, again, is basically semantic, in the greek language. That meaning means something like growth and becoming. Thomas Aquinus reflected in his commentary, that definitio fit per genus proximum et differentiam specificam Definition is achieved through the proximate genus and specific difference. We essentially employ a principle of contradiction or difference, to understand something as nature.
If this principle is correct, all things have a their principle of sufficient reason, even in the most general of generalities, eventually we come to what something is, by what it is not. While Aquinus was also a theologian, (aside from the point here hopefully) he clearly describes not only describe the "being of beings", multiplicity, and flowering of genus and species, but in that, the same principle in which we understand nature or the being of being. We look at least by some guidence to this provision of meaning in any natural entity.
This general principle can be seen in the old discussion of Aristotle, which I was speaking to. Aristotle comes with an example. He wrote that something like tree is of nature, or physis, whereas the chair is not, because the tree is found "in its own cause". The chair has its condition or principle of existence in being shaped or formed by human hands, and is hence not found in its own cause, and is not of nature in this sense.
Of course people are very surprised to hear that a concept of physical nature is not all inclusive, or rather, something found in perfect closure in all cases. How can there be something other than nature? But indeed how do you speak about the meaning of nature, as anything, meaningfully in the first place? Its meaning is found in terms of a differentiation. Hence Aristotle ascribes the principle meaning of nature as being a cause in itself, in a certain provision in his way. This cause is enunciated in the same sense of things that we interpret scientifically or empirically. When we observe an entity with some detachment, or let an experiment proceed in which things are found, we let something be "in itself". Then finally what in our ideal description we call natural law or mechanism, is something which is a "cause in itself". Something found in itself, would be found in its nature.
Hopefully before this turns anyone in knots, we can recognize that to say that nature has a provision of meaning, in such a way, namely a principle of contradiction, (nature is defined in part by what is not nature) we can of course say we know this entity the chair does not stand outside of nature! Aristotle says we by nature desire to know. We thus know that the chair is not some mystery but stands on its own four legs, in its physical nature, insofar as by some prerogative we set out to mark its principles and truly understand them. That prerogative to knowledge, (as much as nature) is essential to us. Hence, while nature has its principle of meaning in a distinction, the chair can be considered either somewhat opaque in or transparent in its principles of existence depending on context to a person who seeks essential knowledge of things.
Aristotle's opening of the prerogative to knowledge is basically in his material analysis. Analuein, to "unloosen" means that the chair is taken apart and found in its parts, that it was formed in, such as the material substance wood. The point in this unloosening, is to find how the chair is made up. We know how it was put together, in various pieces from a natural material substance, wood. This analysis is proposed because wood which makes up the chair, or the matter (mater, Hyle), stands in itself, in its own cause. The wood stands in its own cause with no form imposed on it, at least when it is broken down to material substance. In that way we can know the wood stands in itself in the chair it makes up in a certain way is of nature. This bearing of anything presents a subject-matter (hypokeimenon) or roughly estimated "underlying thing".
The wood, as well as the tree, as well as the chair, are all inclusive to physical nature, and the world is aright! So too for instance we can think that the laptop computer that sits on the table in front of the chair, on the ground; (found in all the principles and scientific foundations of the ideas in its constitution) is of nature, and everything is of nature while we understand a principle of distinction in the world. We can analyze or unloosen the laptop, and we can analyze or unloosen the tree (if that is fitting) or anything to present what a thing is in nature, all inclusively. This presenting of physical entities (presencing) is a significant step, similar to how modern people find the physical world in spaciotemporality, and the experience of a conscious subject.
For whoever has wondered about why we call nature a determined mechanism, this is essentially dealing in these terms. Aristotle tied nature to a technical way of presenting entities, we now know as science, where we appropriate material analyses (chiefly empirically) Aristotle, I think, still bears relavence because his materialism was reductive, and yet so transparently so, to the extent that he could be recognized as a holist, as reductions were seen clearly in context. Why do we unloosen or reduce? Material analyses were an engagement of "unloosening" not necessarily simply a construct presenting an entity as it is.
Aristotle was apparently intending to present an entity, as it is in nature. What is that inclusiveness? The ideal would be to say a mechanically crafted chair stands on its four legs, next to the matter on the ground, and next to the tree that stands as a whole subject. But to Aristtpe the tree as a whole stands in nature, most demonstrably as essential of nature. It would not be off to say it stands there in a way, a priori, or prior to considerations. That would be putting things back to our spatiotemporal, of the modern philosophy of perception and experience.
Quote:
Of things that exist, some exist by nature, some from other causes.
'By nature' the animals and their parts exist, and the plants and the simple bodies (earth, fire, air, water)-for we say that these and the like exist 'by nature'.
All the things mentioned present a feature in which they differ from things which are not constituted by nature. Each of them has within itself a principle of motion and of stationariness (in respect of place, or of growth and decrease, or by way of alteration). On the other hand, a bed and a coat and anything else of that sort, qua receiving these designations i.e. in so far as they are products of art-have no innate impulse to change. But in so far as they happen to be composed of stone or of earth or of a mixture of the two, they do have such an impulse, and just to that extent which seems to indicate that nature is a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily, in virtue of itself and not in virtue of a concomitant attribute.
I say 'not in virtue of a concomitant attribute', because (for instance) a man who is a doctor might cure himself. Nevertheless it is not in so far as he is a patient that he possesses the art of medicine: it merely has happened that the same man is doctor and patient-and that is why these attributes are not always found together. So it is with all other artificial products. None of them has in itself the source of its own production. But while in some cases (for instance houses and the other products of manual labour) that principle is in something else external to the thing, in others those which may cause a change in themselves in virtue of a concomitant attribute-it lies in the things themselves (but not in virtue of what they are).
'Nature' then is what has been stated. Things 'have a nature'which have a principle of this kind. Each of them is a substance; for it is a subject, and nature always implies a subject in which it inheres.
Physics, Book II
Edited by Kurt (04/03/16 01:42 AM)
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: Kurt]
#23077594 - 04/03/16 12:02 AM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: This general principle can be seen in the old discussion of Aristotle, which I was speaking to. Aristotle comes with an example. He wrote that something like tree is of nature, or physis, whereas the chair is not, because the tree is found "in its own cause". The chair has its condition or principle of existence in being shaped or formed by human hands, and is hence not found in its own cause, and is not of nature in this sense.
In modern economical terms a chair is derived from nature as natural capital where it is then turned into manufactured capital for economic gain.
Your argument basically reads, "If something is not inherently found in nature it is not classified as being from nature."
The truth is that something is not classified as being from nature if it does not yet fit into the standard model of particle physics.
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.
Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: Kurt]
#23077598 - 04/03/16 12:05 AM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Philosophers who said things are not what we take them to be.
Lao Tze;
Tao called tao is not tao.
Quote:
a A path fit for travel
b Is not an unvarying path
c A name fit for calling
d Is not a generic name
e “Nothing” names the origin of heaven and earth
f “Being” names the mother of the myriad beings
g And so, always be dispassionate
h In order to see the mysteries
i Always be passionate
j In order to see the objectives
k These two mean the same (when) emerging
l While diverging in significance
m The sameness tells of their mystery
n Mystery leading to greater mystery
o (Is) the gateway to every mystery
Bradford Hatcher; on Lao Tze
Martin Heidegger, "The Nothing"
Quote:
But what is remarkable is that, precisely in the way scientific man secures to himself what is most properly his, he speaks of something different. What should be examined are beings only, and besides that—nothing; beings alone, and further—nothing; solely beings, and beyond that—nothing.
What about this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity. But when we give up the nothing in such a way don't we just concede it? Can we, however, speak of concession when we concede nothing? But perhaps our confused talk already degenerates into an empty squabble over words. Against it science must now reassert its seriousness and soberness of mind, insisting that it is concerned solely with beings. The nothing—what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm?
If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing. Ultimately this is the scientifically rigorous conception of the nothing. We know it, the nothing, in that we wish to know nothing about it. Science wants to know nothing of the nothing. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects. What incongruous state of affairs reveals itself here? With this reflection on our contemporary existence as one determined by science we find ourselves enmeshed in a controversy. In the course of this controversy a question has already evolved. It only requires explicit formulation: How is it with the nothing?
Are we done comparing something to nothing? Or do we essrntially rely on the margins of these distinctions for definitions, even today?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
That's all she wrote :-)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.
Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly]
#23077602 - 04/03/16 12:08 AM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
That might be. I don't know what that picture is but neato.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: Kurt]
#23077614 - 04/03/16 12:17 AM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Radio waves were a pseudo-scientific concept until they were not.
Quote:
1888: Heinrich Hertz demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic waves by building an apparatus that produced and detected UHF radio waves (or microwaves in the UHF region). He also found that radio waves could be transmitted through different types of materials and were reflected by others, the key to radar. His experiments explain reflection, refraction, polarization, interference, and velocity of electromagnetic waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_electromagnetic_theory
Radio waves are definitely something and it'd be helpful to your case of spiritualism if someone was capable of actually proving the existence of something supernatural for once because it damned well hasn't happened yet.
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser
Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,369
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: Kurt]
#23077621 - 04/03/16 12:22 AM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said:
That might be. I don't know what that picture is but neato.
Time for a lesson Kurt.
This is the periodic table of elements, the elements within are made up of 3 fundamental particles, the protons, the neutrons and the electrons.
And this is the standard model of particle physics that makes up and governs the behaviour of protons, neutrons and electrons through the 4 forces of nature.
--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (04/03/16 12:28 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.
Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Conditionality and existence [Re: sudly] 1
#23077677 - 04/03/16 12:57 AM (8 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Somehow I can't help but appreciating your style Sudly. I haven't had somebody hit me in the head with a lesson in a while. Just try to say what you do in terms of the topic, not just arbitrarily for the value of edification, and you can present what you want to discussion, broheim.
By the way, I have to admit I think the pop singer of astrophysics, Neil Tyson, is not really my flavor of intellectual. I think alot of these popularizers of science just find a tidy discussion between specialist and laymen, or in some issue with education, and (as important as that may be) overlook the epistemologist of philosopher of science. Anyway, he's alright as they come, but on science, I think I might enjoy Thomas Kuhn or Paul Feyerabend.
Structure of Scientific Revolutions or other reflections on historicism of science should be considered crucial to education, in my opinion. It is good to be informed about our epoch. I recommend it. Skip the preface and try the introduction if you catch a moment in your pace. 
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Substrate 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
buttonion
whiterastahippie
Zahid
Noetical
Spiffy