Re: A calculus of personal identity

From: John M <>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT)

--- Brent Meeker <> wrote:
I'm sure your professors will be disappointed to hear
that their hard won theories are inconsistent
with thought.
and so would be all who's 'working' paradigm changed
in the continuation of the epistemic enrichment - and:

not 'inconsistent' and not 'thought', I referred just
to consider deemable as a belief based on the science
mindset rather than on the mystic-religious one. I did
not even refer to obsolescence, only to a parallel
between the workings of different belief-systems.

Inconsistent those ideas became only in due course
when a newer paradigm changed the ways of speculation.
And I am speaking here about the boundary-limited,
(topically etc. 'identified') conventional -
reductionist sciences (the only one our mind can work
in including mine of course).

>If I give in now to the quark, there
> is no stop all the way to back to physics 101.
Forget quarks. How about giant sea squids? I've
never seen one of those either and no one has seen
one alive. Or a DNA molecule? Or Plato? If your
thought has led you to discard all "narrow
models", what do you think about?

Brent Meeker

Of course I do not discard the cognitive inventory -
collected over the past millennia, all according to
the observational skills of the time and explained
(reductionistically) at the 'then' level of knowledge.

 The fact that our ongoing explanations about
(sub)atomic or molecular models go out from any
'matterly' concept does not mean that if I bounce into
a stone it does not hurt. We just reached a point with
starting to consider more interconnectedness and
involvement beyond the 'boundaries' of convention.
Isn't this list aiming at such thinking (in a (IMO)
specialized domain?
Your question is a good one, I wish I had already a
well defined answer "WHAT" I am thinking about. Ask
Armstrong, who walked on the Moon, how it would feel
on a planet in another galaxy. "Different!" for sure.
I am not denying the 'existence' of unseeable etc.
features only the firm explanations based on our
(insufficient) knowkedge for the unknown. Modelbased
conclusions for beyond the model.
I have examples: I formulated model-based conclusions
over a half century R&D work. - Successfully.

Best regards


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 10:49:06 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST