Absolutely. It's all guff and it's about looking for hidden meanings and in
the end of course, a hidden purpose. It seems to me that so much of
philosophy is semantics.
Why not "What you see is what you get"? Think of Bertrand Russell's teapot
orbiting Pluto - much loved by Dawkins. Let's be scientific about it rather
than philosophical. Why ask "why should we reject....?" and instead ask
"why should we accept.....?". Do read Dawkins' The God Delusion.
Paul Skinner
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Adrian Midgley (In the office) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 March 2007 09:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Thinking about philosophy
>> "Why should we reject the concept of emergent properties at a scale
>> greater than individual human organisms?"
> It very much depends on your definition of 'God'. You might just call
such
> a thing, assuming conciousness (or even higher conciousness), 'Just
Another
> Life Form'. Emergence does not determine purpose.
Nor abilities.
What basis do we have for thinking that such an emergent would display
even weakly god-like properties?
|