STEM, STEMG, Other

[JDaniel]

We “fit into” this “material universe” (which is a subset of true reality) not ENTIRELY as “a part of it” because our person-ness is NOT “of it” but “in it” while we have earthly life.

Here is the crux of the problem with your view: we (humans) may well be “in it”, but, we are “above it” due to the fact that we have “thoughts” and “values” and these “things” are not material, having no weight or viewable form. Pragmatism says that it is the proper place for the study of metaphysics as thoughts and values are all that IS supra-physical.

Also, our “minds” are in this realm as well, as they are not “physical” either. The brain is merely its vessel (as in container). The chemistry is matter, and, as matter, it can be viewed. But, the chemistry is not Thoughts or Values.

Cats, does this clear it up for you? (Leela, do I have it summed up pretty well?)

JD

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
There are only two types of people. Those who are materialists and those who are not-materialists. What distinguishes the two types is non-belief and belief, respectively, in the supernatural.

There are two types of people, those who try to put everyone into one of two neat little boxes of their own creation, and those who don’t.

<chuckle, chuckle, chuckle!>

You’re absolutely right! And since truth is a binary, and not a scalar, valuation, only those who are WILLING to be binary in valuation, aka willing to “put people (or more properly “people’s behaviors”) in exactly two neat little boxes”, have any idea of what TRUTH actually means.

But, my “two neat little boxes” are not my creation, but rather the creation of God as given us by the Church.

I’m sorry that you’re under that misapprehension that “being binary” is a BAD thing! To be able to deal with truth and untruth one HAS to be able to make decisions, and while I realize that “being binary” (aka being decisive) is an intrinsic evil to the atheistic mind, I also realize that that is why being an atheist is “not a good thing” as if one IS an atheist, one is simply not capable of dealing with truth and untruth, but only various (scalar) shades of “works for me”-ness.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Cats, as you said:“If no human existed, there would not be a need for the rest of the universe.”

But then, why with the story of creation, were we humans created last?

One creates the living environment (later to be “remodeled” into a classroom environment) before the child arrives, not afterward!

And it almost seemed like an after thought for God to do… not like He thought of us first and then made the ‘playground’ for us to play in.

We humans are the ONLY creation, creature, made for His own sake. Not even the angels were created thus, which is most likely why some of them became “peeshed-off” and made demons of themselves.

Even the angels were created for us.

It’s almost like God wasn’t only looking for something to love in His creation… but also, for something (someone) to love Him back. With creating us, He had it… but then He had to add free-will to the mix… and here we are.

Humans were never without free will. Free will was not “added” to us. It is inherent in us, and has been from the start.

We were never a “mechanistic” creation, like the rest of the animals, to which free will was an admixture.

Just like a baby at conception, we are (and were as Adam was) an instantaneous creation as we are, body and soul as one.

Nothing is “added into” a baby to give him free will.

And this:“We “fit into” this “material universe” (which is a subset of true reality) not ENTIRELY as “a part of it” because our person-ness is NOT “of it” but “in it” while we have earthly life.” I also see it pretty much this same way.

Amen!

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One creates the living environment (later to be “remodeled” into a classroom environment) before the child arrives, not afterward!

We humans are the ONLY creation, creature, made for His own sake. Not even the angels were created thus, which is most likely why some of them became “peeshed-off” and made demons of themselves.

Even the angels were created for us.

Humans were never without free will. Free will was not “added” to us. It is inherent in us, and has been from the start.

We were never a “mechanistic” creation, like the rest of the animals, to which free will was an admixture.

Just like a baby at conception, we are (and were as Adam was) an instantaneous creation as we are, body and soul as one.

Nothing is “added into” a baby to give him free will.

Amen!

:shamrock2:

i am a materialist who believes in the supernatural, intellectually based on objective mathematical evidence and accepted science.

i tend to consider anything else to be less than rational, essentially sophistry in a cup, a way to feed intellectual egos rather than to arrive at some actual truth.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
We “fit into” this “material universe” (which is a subset of true reality) not ENTIRELY as “a part of it” because our person-ness is NOT “of it” but “in it” while we have earthly life.

Here is the crux of the problem with your view: …

…we (humans) may well be “in it”, but, we are “above it” due to the fact that we have “thoughts” and “values” and these “things” are not material, having no weight or viewable form.

But our thoughts ARE “viewable”! “Viewable” simply means “observable” (sense-able), and my thoughts are quite sensible by me when I’m having them.

But where do these “observables” reside? They reside in my PERSON, and my person is the “consubstantial” body AND soul that is “me”.

Pragmatism says that it is the proper place for the study of metaphysics as thoughts and values are all that IS supra-physical.

And that is where pragmatism is wrong, because it doesn’t take into consideration the reality of the PERSON, but only the ORGANISM.

The “thoughts/etc” supra-physical, meaning super-natural, things are contained in the PERSON, and travel WITH the person after earthly-death “contained” in the soul.

Also, our “minds” are in this realm as well, as they are not “physical” either. The brain is merely its vessel (as in container). The chemistry is matter, and, as matter, it can be viewed. But, the chemistry is not Thoughts or Values.

Cats, does this clear it up for you?)

Do you really think that I didn’t know how a materialist (regardless of whether they call themselves a “pragmatist”) understands the relationship between thoughts and their (supposed) necessary underlying material substrate (“brain”)?

It is true, though, that once the underlying organic substrate for our thoughts is “stripped” from our person we lose the ability to make revocable choices.

That is why our choice of heaven or hell is irrevocable.

But our free will is never stripped from us, and we continue to will, to make choices, eternally, though each choice is thereafter irrevocable.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

i am a materialist who believes in the supernatural, intellectually based on objective mathematical evidence and accepted science.

i tend to consider anything else to be less than rational, essentially sophistry in a cup, a way to feed intellectual egos rather than to arrive at some actual truth.

Hear freakin’ hear, mon ami!!

I believe in the mechanical material universe!

I believe in the supernatural interpenetration of the material universe at those points we call “persons”!

I believe in the supernatural things not always “within” the material universe we call God, the angels and saints (and their “stuff”)!

I believe that humans are fully capable and DARNED good at inventing ultra-complex hyper-elaborations of correct and incorrect interpretations of natural law so as to make their Godly and unGodly wants “do-able” and “comfortable-ish” regardless of whether those wants are good or evil.

I believe that the Tower of Babel is constructed daily, and allowed to continue building for precisely the same reason the original was.

That we haven’t seen the “big knock-over” quite yet is simply God reeling out the line to play the fish and tire him for easier “transom yanking”! (Yummmmmmmmmmm!)

I believe that when someone says, “What is TRUTH?”, they sound, usually unbeknownst to themselves, precisely like Pontius Pilate, with the (at least unconscious) intent of killing this “pesky” God, who interferes with their getting back to their “pleasures” in a timely manner.

I believe that when someone threatens to kill God, whether they realize that or not, I must act.

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hear freakin’ hear, mon ami!!

I believe in the mechanical material universe!

 

[JDaniel]

But our thoughts ARE “viewable”! “Viewable” simply means “observable” (sense-able), and my thoughts are quite sensible by me when I’m having them.

But where do these “observables” reside? They reside in my PERSON, and my person is the “consubstantial” body AND soul that is “me”.

And that is where pragmatism is wrong, because it doesn’t take into consideration the reality of the PERSON, but only the ORGANISM.

The “thoughts/etc” supra-physical, meaning super-natural, things are contained in the PERSON, and travel WITH the person after earthly-death “contained” in the soul.

Do you really think that I didn’t know how a materialist (regardless of whether they call themselves a “pragmatist”) understands the relationship between thoughts and their (supposed) necessary underlying material substrate (“brain”)?

It is true, though, that once the underlying organic substrate for our thoughts is “stripped” from our person we lose the ability to make revocable choices.

That is why our choice of heaven or hell is irrevocable.

But our free will is never stripped from us, and we continue to will, to make choices, eternally, though each choice is thereafter irrevocable.

:shamrock2:

My apologies. I’d love to be able to instantly answer you, but, my formal training in “Pragmatism” is at a very beginning and rudimentary place. Perhaps someone can help me with at least the first question hereinabove.

What I am working on though, is the positing of a word that can replace (partially, if not completely) the word “cause”. The Pragmatists will not cross the aisle on this. I wish to replace “cause” with a word conveying strength; The Prags want to use " value".

Now, doesn’t “value” seem a little too, um, prissy to you? Seriously. Doesn’t it seem “feminine”? If Pragmatists would only get out of their stuck-in-femininity miasmic opera, I really think they would have a formidable argument.

Consider, on the other hand, replacing “cause” with a masculine word, such as “compel”, or, better yet, “forced”. Forced might be a little too masculine. Let me refine it down a bit to, shall we say, “instructed”? Thus we could say, billiard ball A instructed billiad ball B to fly off in a NNW direction, with a slight left-ward spin, for approximately 10 inches. Now, would any science have a problem with that?

Just a thought though, in reference to your first two sentences, what if the “thoughts” you SAY you have were merely “preferences” that your mind was compelled to move towards - like iron filings to a magnet? If they were therefore, outside of your PERSON, then they would not travel with you on your journey into the cosmos. Right?

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My apologies. I’d love to be able to instantly answer you, but, my formal training in “Pragmatism” is at a very beginning and rudimentary place. Perhaps someone can help me with at least the first question hereinabove.

What I am working on though, is the positing of a word that can replace (partially, if not completely) the word “cause”. The Pragmatists will not cross the aisle on this. I wish to replace “cause” with a word conveying strength; The Prags want to use " value".

Now, doesn’t “value” seem a little too, um, prissy to you? Seriously. Doesn’t it seem “feminine”? If Pragmatists would only get out of their stuck-in-femininity miasmic opera, I really think they would have a formidable argument.

Consider, on the other hand, replacing “cause” with a masculine word, such as “compel”, or, better yet, “forced”. Forced might be a little too masculine. Let me refine it down a bit to, shall we say, “instructed”? Thus we could say, billiard ball A instructed billiad ball B to fly off in a NNW direction, with a slight left-ward spin, for approximately 10 inches. Now, would any science have a problem with that?

Just a thought though, in reference to your first two sentences, what if the “thoughts” you SAY you have were merely “preferences” that your mind was compelled to move towards - like iron filings to a magnet? If they were therefore, outside of your PERSON, then they would not travel with you on your journey into the cosmos. Right?

JD

i say ‘rutabaga’ hold on hear me out.

the ‘rut’ prefix is masculine in both sound and origin, the ‘a’ root is neutral in form the ‘baga’ suffix is a soft feminine vowel sound.

the construction of this word is particularly suited in this context because it should equally find favor with patterns currently existing as female, male, or preop transgendered. raising its ‘worth’

there for i suggest from here on out we can use this langauge

'billiard ball A rutabagaed billiard ball B to such and such dimensions

 

[JDaniel]

i say ‘rutabaga’ hold on hear me out.

the ‘rut’ prefix is masculine in both sound and origin, the ‘a’ root is neutral in form the ‘baga’ suffix is a soft feminine vowel sound.

the construction of this word is particularly suited in this context because it should equally find favor with patterns currently existing as female, male, or preop transgendered. raising its ‘worth’

there for i suggest from here on out we can use this langauge

'billiard ball A rutabagaed billiard ball B to such and such dimensions

C’mon, I’m being serious here. Leela and some of the other Prags on this thread have been studying this stuff for a longish time now. I am beginning to understand what the logic is.

It’s not as though it is “bad”, per se, to use the word “value”, it’s just that I see “cause” as an ever-so-slightly more powerful word. “Cause” means to force an effect, not just passively expect an effect. Thus, I proposed the word “compel”. “Compel” is a universal as well. And, there are gradations of “compel”.

So, a tree limb is compelled to fall off of the tree and onto the ground AND anything in its way is crushed and killed. Well, there’s value there, but, the “state of compel” says it more completely, due to its added force. “The tree limb FELL to the earth.” It didn’t just float down in slow-motion. Do you see what i mean?

JD

 

[Michael_David]

Hi Petey, seems your interested in metaphysic, but you want pure scientific proof of any metaphysical inferences.

As I understand meta-physics it does become personal in that it relates to the ‘person’ and ‘life’. Also, it would seem that you can neither proof it nor disprove it, and the same goes for me… except, that it has worked or showed in my living of life as a person. This means, that the person becomes an example of the metaphysical inferences made, which you do not see as ‘scientific proof’. (Although you seemed to catch a certain spiritual nature in my posts, so as to mention it). Could this be proof by Petey?

It it works for Petey, scientific or not, is that not proof enough for you as a person? Science takes very ‘specific’ experiments but cannot relate the results to the whole person. Like this: if they stick a pin in your index finger and you jump from the pain, can they infer that sticking a pin (anywhere) in the flesh will cause pain? No! They can only say it works in the tip of the index finger where they did the test. Science would have to stick that pin in every millimeter of the skin and see the results, to say that it will be scientifically provable to say it works for the whole of ones flesh. Metaphysics doesn’t need to do that. Flesh is flesh no matter where on the body it is, so the pain felt in one location will also be felt in all the locations.

You see why wanting things related to all the faculties of what makes up a human being to be verified by scientific proof is impossible? Even Psychology is still learning about the mind-emotion connection in the person, much less to even think about going about it scientifically. Methodically yes, scientifically no… and, as many times as they think they have it, they find that they do not.

All I can offer for my inferences, is me. And that is why I recommended that you take a look at Petey and see what you find. There is more to Petey then scientific proof.

 

[Michael_David]

Hi JD, still looking for that ‘magic’ word I see.

Why does it have to be masculine? Shouldn’t it refer to both sexes of us humans? Perhaps, induce, or impel would work, since it comes from the ‘inside’ out. Cause seems to refer more to the physical realm for me, while impel or induce to the supra-physical realms; and value or worth to the spiritual realms.

Isn’t being a ‘lexicon’ fun?

 

[Fran65]

… if they stick a pin in your index finger and you jump from the pain, can they infer that sticking a pin (anywhere) in the flesh will cause pain? No! They can only say it works in the tip of the index finger where they did the test. Science would have to stick that pin in every millimeter of the skin and see the results, to say that it will be scientifically provable to say it works for the whole of ones flesh. .

Actually, no, they wouldn’t!

Have you heard of sampling and generalisation? If the sample reflects the population (if the skin on the finger is similar enough to the skin on the rest of the body), then one can apply the findings of the test to the rest of skin.

If this statement were correct then we would not have modern medicine for example: Oh, that surgical techniques only worked on him…Oh, penicillin only worked on her…

… There is more to Petey then scientific proof.

I think you will find that as Catholics we knew that already!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Petey, seems your interested in metaphysic, but you want pure scientific proof of any metaphysical inferences.

aristotle took it to mean ‘that which comes after the physics’, in other words something that arises out of physics, but the definition doesn’t matter. here is why

any discussion having no grounding in objectively observable phenomenon is just peoples opinions, they can have no value to reaching understanding of metaphysics.

i asked you specifically for proofs to see if these arguments were just opinions or something more.

if you choose to reason based entirely on arguments constructed from ‘whole cloth’ , thats fine, but don’t expect the rest of us to take it as anything more than opinion.

there are thousands of people with opinions only on this forum, if you have no proofs to offer than what makes your opinion any more valid than any other persons?

thats why some evidence or proofs are necessary because without them, ones arguments carry no weight.

As I understand meta-physics it does become personal in that it relates to the ‘person’ and ‘life’. Also, it would seem that you can neither proof it nor disprove it, and the same goes for me…

as someone who likes cold hard facts, i can indeed offer proofs of my metaphysical assertions, those proofs are based on commonly accepted science and mathematical proofs involved in that science.

except, that it has worked or showed in my living of life as a person. This means, that the person becomes an example of the metaphysical inferences made, which you do not see as ‘scientific proof’.

i don’t see it as ‘scientific proof’ simply because it is not derived from the scientific method or from data derived from that method

(Although you seemed to catch a certain spiritual nature in my posts, so as to mention it). Could this be proof by Petey?

i dont see a ‘spiritual nature’ i see unsupported assertions, just opinion nothing more, though i might ask what does ‘proof by petey’ mean?

It it works for Petey, scientific or not, is that not proof enough for you as a person?

no its not proof enough for me, as i have stated, subjective phenomenon are nothing but opinion.

Science takes very ‘specific’ experiments but cannot relate the results to the whole person. Like this: if they stick a pin in your index finger and you jump from the pain, can they infer that sticking a pin (anywhere) in the flesh will cause pain? No! They can only say it works in the tip of the index finger where they did the test. Science would have to stick that pin in every millimeter of the skin and see the results, to say that it will be scientifically provable to say it works for the whole of ones flesh. Metaphysics doesn’t need to do that. Flesh is flesh no matter where on the body it is, so the pain felt in one location will also be felt in all the locations.

here you make an argument and then refute it in the same paragraph i will take that to mean you are being funny

You see why wanting things related to all the faculties of what makes up a human being to be verified by scientific proof is impossible?

no, i don’t, that just seems like another unsupported opinion. refuted on its face by modern science.

Even Psychology is still learning about the mind-emotion connection in the person, much less to even think about going about it scientifically. Methodically yes, scientifically no… and, as many times as they think they have it, they find that they do not.

psychology is pseudoscience attempting to use aggregate statistical analysis in order to find an understanding the ‘mind’ as though one can separate itself from the electro-chemical interactions of the neuronal substrate. something of which they can offer no evidence either. it is further denied by neuroscience.
but ‘i will admit thats just my opinion’

All I can offer for my inferences, is me. And that is why I recommended that you take a look at Petey and see what you find. There is more to Petey then scientific proof.

that is another opinion with no evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, no, they wouldn’t!

Have you heard of sampling and generalisation? If the sample reflects the population (if the skin on the finger is similar enough to the skin on the rest of the body), then one can apply the findings of the test to the rest of skin.

If this statement were correct then we would not have modern medicine for example: Oh, that surgical techniques only worked on him…Oh, penicillin only worked on her…

I think you will find that as Catholics we knew that already!

i think the idea of statistical sampling may be lost here, its provable, which is somehow of less value than opinion.

heretofore all things which do not match my opinion are false by fiat!

i refute all refutations!

heck, i refute the refutation of all refutations previously refuted, ad infinitum

all by the mighty power of my opinion!

or what i actually mean in case you mean to confront me on some fault in my reasoning later is

RUTABAGA!

 

[Michael_David]

Yes, Petey, I tend to look at things fluidly in the world I live in. What worked yesterday, may not today, but will again tomorrow. I call this learning or growing, and it applies to every layer of my being.

You seem to look at things solidly in the world you live in.

I have one solid thing that I know of in this life (the Trinity), all the rest is fluid or vapor.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

here is my argument based on current accepted cosmology, tell me what you think

it has come to my attention in various conversations that the accepted big bang theory proves the existence of an infinity prior to the expansion.

here is why.

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe

Well, since I don’t believe in “singularities” as a physical possibility (or any other “infinity possessing” thing [other than God]), any inference (mathematical or elsewise !?]) of a singularity means (to me) that the assumptions which seem to allow for said singularity “break down” somewhat “before” the singularity would (supposedly) form, so this “thing” that REALLY exists in place of the impossible singularity is, as far as I’m concerned, the “ex nihilo”, but NOT God Himself.

Why? 'Cause we’re told that God didn’t rip some “stuff” off of Himself and create the universe from that, but rather that He DID create the actual universe “from out of nothing” (the much vaunted “ex nihilo”), and this “stuff” which did eventually “unwind” into being the universe while it was not yet “in time-space” but NOT “infinitely dense” (a singularity) is a pretty much perfect description of the “nihilo” which was “ex-ified” into becoming our material universe.

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

Well, once again, my opinion is that only the “God” infinity is permissible, and this “thing” (the aforesaid “nihilo” which is only “nihilo” because it’s a boundary condition “thingy” which isn’t infinitely dense yet doesn’t exist in “space-time”) is just the “playdoh” which became the universe.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

But the cause wasn’t the stuff. The stuff was the “nihilo” which God (the singular infinity) first-caused, by “ex-ing” it (sorry for torturing the language so much), into our universe.

here is my argument from Free Will, please critique this

in a purely scientific, material universe governed by the laws of physics and mathematics Free Will is impossible.

Hear hear! Quite so!

if one has a complete knowledge of the position, direction, and speed of every particle in the universe, at the moment of creation and enough processing power to calculate their subsequent interaction than one can use those tools to determine the end state and any point in between.

by that reckoning than nothing could be any different than it already is, all particle motion is predetermined from the starting state of the universe

Which, of course, makes it (the whole “game”) utterly pointless.

not even the electro-chemical interactions of the brain could be separated from these mathematical chains.

therefore Free Will is by necessity, a created quality.

Correct. It MUST be created “ex nihilo” (as it can’t be “derived” from the deterministic “machine”) by, SPECIFICALLY, not only “A” person, but PERSONS!

God has free will (axiom). Free will is senseless if there is nothing to do with it. A singular person (if God were a single person) with nothing and no one to interact with has nothing to do, which would make His “free will” senseless.

Since God does have free will, and His free will is not senseless, God is at least two persons. And as we all know the reasons He’s three and only three persons (which I don’t recall right now because I’d have to look it up, but we DO know that said reasons exist) God’s free will, our existence as persons and the universe’s creation ex nihilo is perfectly proved to the satisfaction of everyone and the great “fight” between all the various factions as to the nature and existence of God and salvation history’s reality is hereby called “null and void” and over, and we can get on with relieving suffering and avoiding sin, and stop wasting so much precious time arguing and being “stupid without a license”.

i posted these as threads but no one seem interested after viewing them, but i think they might be ok, let me know what you think

So, that’s what I think.

Of course, who gives a fetid fig what I think!?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

My apologies. I’d love to be able to instantly answer you, but, my formal training in “Pragmatism” is at a very beginning and rudimentary place. Perhaps someone can help me with at least the first question hereinabove.

I like that word: “hereinabove”

You voodn’t pare-hapz be ein deutsche “lawyer” (“rechtsanwalt”?), vood you?

What I am working on though, is the positing of a word that can replace (partially, if not completely) the word “cause”. The Pragmatists will not cross the aisle on this. I wish to replace “cause” with a word conveying strength; The Prags want to use “value”.

Now, doesn’t “value” seem a little too, um, prissy to you? Seriously. Doesn’t it seem “feminine”? If Pragmatists would only get out of their stuck-in-femininity miasmic opera, I really think they would have a formidable argument.

Having had very little (apparently NO) experience with pragmatists, I can only say that the “chick-flickesque-atology” (more linguistic torture! I’m sorry!) that their, uh, “philosophy” appears to be makes even the most agonizingly drawn-out soaps (soap operas) seem like the concise emergency-exit instructions on Lufthansa short-haul flights.

Consider, on the other hand, replacing “cause” with a masculine word, such as “compel”, or, better yet, “forced”. Forced might be a little too masculine. Let me refine it down a bit to, shall we say, “instructed”? Thus we could say, billiard ball A instructed billiard ball B to fly off in a NNW direction, with a slight left-ward spin, for approximately 10 inches. Now, would any science have a problem with that?

Still too woosey.

Just a thought though, in reference to your first two sentences, what if the “thoughts” you SAY you have were merely “preferences” that your mind was compelled to move towards - like iron filings to a magnet?

Well, thoughts ARE preferences, unless they’re not, in which case they’re “how to GET preferences”, which I suppose is just a meta-preference, but then how many “levels” of meta-tude is possible, which invokes my (seemingly biological, possibly immunological) aversion to “infinities” yet again, which tells me that I’m on the wrong track here, and that it’s more likely that thoughts are “God stuff” (just as all other “infinities” are pointers toward God in some way or other) which are simply “gifts” from God.

Thoughts are (more likely) simply an attribute of free will, which is itself an attribute of person-hood.

If they were therefore, outside of your PERSON, then they would not travel with you on your journey into the cosmos. Right?

But they AREN’T outside of a person.

If they WERE outside of a person then they’d be deterministic, which would divorce “thinking” from “free will”, which doesn’t sound quite right to me.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

'billiard ball A rutabagaed billiard ball B to such and such dimensions

I suppose that’s better than saying:

Billiard ball A rutted billiard ball B into the big hole in the corner along vector B-Hole.

At least we needn’t reference vector A-Hole, unless vector B-hole is directionally (though obviously not linearly) congruent with A-Hole, so that’s a good thing!

:shamrock2:

 

[Fran65]

What worked yesterday, may not today, but will again tomorrow.

I hope that you are not Doctor.

And before you raise an objection, I know that Doctors have to be aware of differing responses to treatment. The development of resistance to antibiotics; autoimmune responses; differing sensitivity to drugs etc. Individual differences.

However, most Doctors are successful because most of the time their diagnosis and treatment work. If you have a particular strain of bacterial pneumonia then a particular antibiotic will (most likely) work.

I would not want my cardiologist to take a ‘fluid’ response to his work, and I’m also glad that my cardiac surgeon has the amount of knowledge, experience and skill that he has.

I guess if you are self employed (depending on your employment), an artist (of whatever media), some type of holistic therapist or in some sort of motivational organisation a fluid approach to life may work just fine…

I’m just saying its not always helpful and that approach stymies scientific, philosophical and academic endeavour.