Anomalous Data - Quote of the Day

Friday, June 24, 2005

“Shall we then say, like Newton, that all such truths are made arbitrarily by God? Shall we seek such truths in th occult? For if God has laid these rules down arbitrarily, then they are occult by nature.

To me, this notion is offensive; it seems to cast God in the role of a capricious despot who desires to hide the truth from us...I like to believe he would have chosen wisely and according to some coherant plan that our minds-insofar as they are in God's image-are capable of understanding.

Unlike the Alchemists, who see angels, demons,miracles, and divine essences everywhere, I recognize nothing in the world but bodies and minds...”

-- Dr. Leibniz, as portrayed by Neal Stephanson in _Quicksilver_

See? A fictional protrayal of a Natural Philosopher who died sometime shortly after the Age of Elightenment understands me.

Friday, June 24, 2005 8:44:21 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [4] | Philosophical

Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:57:54 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

"I recognize nothing in the world but bodies and minds"

What an excellent way of expressing it.

I agree, but would put it this way: I believe in nothing for which no proof exists or can exist.

But his way sounds less offensive to supernaturalists I suppose. But then, he's a (slightly) better writer than me...

The Evil Cub

Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:38:48 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Ok, Devil's Advocate here.

If one does not believe in something for which no proof exists, nor can exist - how does one prove that "the mind" exists?

The brain can be touched, manipulated, felt. The mind, the intellect, can only be "seen" or "proven" by the actions and/or words spoken by the individual. This does not "prove" that there is a mind behind these actions or words - simply that actions or words are taken.

If one is willing to take perception (and/or logic) as "proof" - then "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy."

If the logic of "I think, therefore I am" is reasonable proof for the existance of the mind, then is there not other logical (and/or experiential) proof for the existance of "things not seen"?

Cat Wagner

Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:40:29 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

The 'mind' is simply an energetic expression of the electrochemical reactions of the interactions of so many millions of neurons. It's a standing wavefront that is an emergent property of a very complex set of interactions.

In other words, physical proofs for it does exist. It's just not 'proof' you can touch with your hands.

I am willing to evaluate the evidence, the proof, for anything. But there is no evidence for the existance of those things which have no physical existance.

If there is evidence, then the object or phenomenon in question does have physical existance, and therefore is not supernatural. Nothing that exists is literally 'above nature' because if it exists, it's part of nature.

Just not a part we neccisarily understand at the present time.

The Evil Cub

Sunday, June 26, 2005 7:01:56 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

You know what? I can stand with that kind of definition.

What most people claim as "supernatural" does have evidences - just most of them are not understood by many scientists (albeit, the quantum theorists seem to be coming closer and closer to being able to add measurable proof to "supernatural" acts.

It isn't "supernatural" - it is nature. And there we agree. :)

Cat Wagner

Comments are closed.