mitchellmckain » October 4th, 2017, 8:16 pm wrote:Don Juan » October 4th, 2017, 2:00 am wrote:I don't think so. I do not discount testing hypothesis. I am aware however that more than that, scientific method also essentially include characterizations.
Again... so what? You still haven't said anything which you have shown to have any bearing on the discussion. It leads me to wonder if you are just playing word games with little intention to actually communicate something.
We have already began, since our first discussion. When you wish to do an inquiry, you prepare your materials, you do your homework, check the context, check the literature and references, the procedures, the method of analyses, etc etc. The same with almost every activity, like farming, writing discourse...and from time to time you reflect about it if whether there are things you haven't considered during preparation. We have already began I assure you. At least you discovered that I am not coming from your angle and we do not share some concepts, principles and approaches. Now since this all began with your discussion of 'original sin' relevant to this topic on Critique of Religion, I now ask (because I might have misunderstood you), what do you mean by 'original sin' and where does the meaning came from and please do provide me a reference so I can check also. Now understand that we are talking not only of words, sentences and paragraphs, but also of
terms, propositions and arguments. So you have the liberty, but of course not so much liberty, to refer to them.
Don Juan » October 4th, 2017, 2:00 am wrote:Can one claim 100% truth in science? Did I not mention mental models and maps and
faithfulness to the territory in terms of structure? I was talking of 'assumption' in terms of 'presupposition' in that question.
A demand for absolutes is a fools game. I will let you indulge in the wild goose chase for certainty while I shall stick to what is reasonable and relevant to human existence and life. Presuppositions are unavoidable. You are of course welcome to challenge any you think need challenging but then you need to do the work of presenting a case for it.
[/quote]
I have already began, it's just the pacing is slow as we undergo into some rough preparations. Before I launch into an inquiry, please do share with me what you mean by 'original sin' - refer me also to some references to support or those contributing to the meaning.
Don Juan » October 4th, 2017, 2:00 am wrote:Your obedience theology concepts must have been "hard written" in your brain, I wonder if that model is an "addiction." Do you presuppose God must be a being in the first place?
Odd notion. If it is "hard written" in my brain then you must of written it there because I hadn't used the term until I read that post of yours.
Well, it does not follow that if it is your first time to use the term in this forum it is not there in your brain a long time ago. The network of ideas about it are set in you,
so at least the potential is there and that potential keeps on expressing the term.
I have previously noticed a tendency of religions to interpret things in terms of obedience and pondered why this was the case, coming to the conclusion by means of what you have called abductive reasoning that a quest for power was at the root of it. Though I suppose it could also be put down to an inability to escape a child's way of looking at the world.
Abductive reasoning is an interesting topic. It's powerful, yet I sense some 'sinister' effect in it because it is meant to be well-grounded on facts more than logic especially on critical issues having to do with life and freedom.
Don Juan » October 3rd, 2017, 2:18 pm wrote:Did I not mention 'essence'? In terms of essence, those you call essence has even more shared fundamental principles. The next question in your assertion was why at least a single cell grow, learn, evolve etc etc.
Therefore... I obviously saw no reason to agree what you were talking about had anything to do with the essence of the phenomenon/process of life. Sounds more like what you have decided to make your own personal mental life all about.
You are too fast. We begin with distinctions. What is fundamental to you may not be fundamental to me - but we have to check that with common references.
We see hierarchies of organization of elements in a lot of things which are not alive, therefore we have no reason to see them as the essence of life. Life has more to do with how this organization of elements got there which is all to do with growth, learning and adaptation and that is why these are the essence of life. "Quest for information" imposes too much anthropomorphizing motivation. Just because a process collects information does not mean that this is what motivates it. Looks more like a means to an end to me. It could be a useful way of looking at things but that doesn't make it a valid basis for an objection. This means it should therefore be introduced into the discussion as a suggestion with reasoning to support why it is useful in the context of the discussion.
I am looking at the edge, between non-living and living, and how "problem solving" may have occurred at the level of life's beginning, aan assembly of macromolecules in a certain organization maintained and improved its survival gaining clear information through greater and greater dynamic configurations and organizations manifesting growth, learning, evolution etc etc.
Don Juan » October 3rd, 2017, 2:18 pm wrote:You don't think we really can place limits EXCEPT?
That is what I said. You can clarify your position in response to this or not, as you like. DO YOU have something to say?
In short, you do think that one can place limits at least on some aspects.
Shorter isn't always better. One dimensional black and white characterizations are distorting thus we specify the types of limitations in order to clarify the reality of the situation. There are always limitations, but are they the limitations which matter in the discussion. For example, is there a limitation in counting numbers? Well, of course there are limitations implied by the very meaning of the word counting -- it means we are talking about numbers and the progression made by adding to the number we are at to get a higher number. But these are only a matter of clarifying what we mean by counting and it does not limit us in the most likely way that the word limiting refers to in the context, which is how high of a number we can reach by counting. The limitations I listed were clearly of this clarifying sort.
We begin with 'original sin.'
The point is that whether you do so by distance or fortification you are erecting barriers to communication. It looks rather defensive either way. Communication requires making your position plain so it is out there for everyone to see. There is something a little dishonest about taking pot shots at the views of other people from either distance or cover. If you don't actually have a position on the subject then you should at least make that clear. And if you do have a position, then you should make some effort to state what it is. It should be clear from this thread that this is one thing which I have made every effort to do, even if I have to make guesses about what it is someone wants to know.
I don't think so. I begin with observation for characterization - then I state my position - then test that position. We check the map and see where we are located - we even check if whether the map is updated or obsolete. Before you say that the machine is not working and do repairs, check first if whether it is plugged into an electrical outlet.
Communication is difficult. Misunderstandings are as much a part of communication as mistakes are a part of learning. So putting yourself (your position) out there for criticism is one of the best measures of sincerity in the communication process. Just saying... for clarification NOT accusation.
That is why if one launches into a diarrhea of concepts, there so much noise in there. This is not about sincerity, but about what is in the territory and are we faithful to it, and with that faithfulness, can we have answers to our questions regarding the topic.