Are we sure this is Chris Lees, sounds more like Bill Clinton.
More below.
--- Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Bill wrote :
>
> >Seriously, folks. We must realize that quantum phenomena are just
> that,
> >quantum phenomena.
>
> What does that mean ? What are quantum phenomena ? seriously ?
Well Chris, I think it is only fair, that first you tell us what what
means.
>
> >Wolves, people, holes in the ozone, etc., are not
> >quantum phenomena.
>
> How come ? They are chemical phenomena, hence considered as 'made'
> of atomic particles, hence subatomic particles, hence quantum phenomena,
> no ?
Hmmm....I now this might be pointless, but couldn't this be an swell
example of the fallacy of composition. Lets see a wolf are comprised of a
whole lotta chemicals therefore wolf is nothing but chemicals. Thus,
armed with a chemistry kit one could concievably make a wolf.
> And they exist in somekind of background, and what's that, ultimately ?
> And you obviously will not have any truck with theories that
> consciousness,
> whether your own or the wolf's, is a quantum phenomenon ?
>
> >If we want to be speaking of epistemic phenomenalism, then that is a
> >different matter -- that is to say, whether or not there exists a
> one-to-one
> >correspondence between our sense data (phenomena) and the
> "thing-in-itself"
> >(Kant's numena). Unless we are going back to Berkeley's extreme
> epistemic
> >skepticism, which would offer us no help at all with respect to the
> >environment.
> >
> >Frankly, it matters not to me whether or not my observations correspond
> 1:1
> >with the "thing-in-itself." There quite clearly is a world with which
> we
> >interact (ontic claim), social construction (epistemic claims)
> >notwithstanding (sit out in the summer sun for about 4 hours without
> >sunscreen, and tell me that the external world either does not exist or
> does
> >not interact with us). To know the thing-in-itself is a metaphysical
> quest
> >that has little to no pragmatic value. What we do with our sense
> data, on
> >the other hand, will determine the sustainability of our future or the
> >survival of wolves.
>
> Well, that's a practical and pragmatic outlook I suppose. Nice and safe.
> Seems you are sticking with a nineteenth century conventional view, no ?
Chris' could you tell us what 'a' means in that sentence?
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a
'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|