> That is what most of us on this list are trying, with very different outcomes,
> it appears.
the goal is to find a way that we all can expiriance the same level of
reallity
> > > you can not understand the existence of personality-comming out of
> > > chemicals ?-if yes than try it do mix some chemicals and make some living
> > > entity .. good luck :-)
>
> Still, that is what evolution has achieved,
i am more in favour of devolution concept-wich says that things are
developed from top down but for us they look as they are developing
botom up
i am always wondering how a lover level system is becoming complexer and
gets "higher" without geting information and beeing a part of a "external"
system ?
where you get the "intelligence" for "selforganisation" out of your local
system ?
in my understanding it is a "mystical" act for a lover level local system
to evolve true evolution to a higher more complex system just by... what
ever explanation you use
every local system is a part of the higher level system and gets from them
the needed information to work and to evolve
what i have spocken about is the "highest posible system" for wich there
is no scientific research done
> unless you claim that we have to throw
> over board all knowledge gathered by evolutionary biology.
> Mind exists only when biochemical processing is going on.
as always it depends on wich level in the system you look at all this
things it may look like from the point of a person who hase seen a other
perosn sitting in the car and when this person is dont sitting more in the
car you may think this person dont exists any more-but from the other
point of view you may see this one person walking out of the car and goes
the streets down and changes the car and drives away with other or flays
away with the airplain but becouse the first person look is not beeing
ablle to know thishe is thinking the other person disapears entyaerly
it is a point of view
> When this processing stops (death), there is
> no more mind. At least that is the scientific approach and for the moment we
> better stick to that. These are the only speculations
> which can lead to valuable discussions. Ideas coming from subjective
> mystical experiences are of limited use (although these mystic
> experiences are truly experienced, no doubt).
we have seen the limits of the "scientific" world view and the "tools"
they are using to understand how this compex system material universe is
working - it is a "problem" of conciesnes level and the point of view
-for one person he is shure that when this person is not sitting in the
car she dont exists any more
-for other person he hase seeing him changing the cars and knows he is
just out of our direct visual perception but with intelectual means
you can understand becouse this person is not in my direct sight field
dont means that this person don exists "any more"
we put tomuch waight into the "power" of direct sensual expiriance and
"one particular" point of viuew
it is a tricky thing to place the "local single point of view" as the
"ultimate alldeterminating point of view" - becouse "for you it looks
complitely right..."
no problem with evelotionary biology but as a part of a higher system
and not as a "independent selfevolving and organizing system"
from a lover level point of view it looks as this thing are evolvong by
itself but from a diferent point of view you may see this system geting
information from a higher level system you are not be ablle to see at the
moment
so this was my contribution
the "wholle system aproach"
> Why don't you try by studying evolutionary biology? That would be far more
> simpler and far more efficient.
becouse e-biology is "one point of view" and we will not be ablle to
understand the "wholle system" from the standpoint of a single part of the
system we even would not be ablle to understand the part system by
studying itself allone
> Each time science seems to reach some boundaries - at least according to the
> interpretation of some, God comes in again. Quite an interesting phenomenon,
> this recurrent need for some all mighty deity. Something for
> memeticists.
what i am trying is to bring us to the level of logical and
systemtheoretical research wich will help us to overcome the boundaries of
"direct sensual perception" and do our research by "our brain" instade by
"our eyes"
"what i direct can percieve is right and what not it dont exists"
with our eyes we can not see the air but with some instruments we see
its there
so i am trying to help to develope instruments wich will enable us to
"look deeper" into the system of the world
and the system of mathematics and system theories wich are aplayablle to
our physical living and societal systems seems the posible way to go
> We all should try to be universalists, but we should work
> systematically and use the vast knowledge already gathered by science,
> instead of making just-so speculations.
we should be universalists and work from both direction
botom up and top down
at the same time
and meet in the middle :-)
> Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be
thanks
sascha