Universal Design

[Iacchus]

I'll bite.

So, you choose to define the whole by pointing out the existence of the partial and its relation to the whole only to conclude that the partial cannot stand alone?

Socreates would spank you if he could read that.

Yes, but don't you think we should approach everything from the standpoint of wholeness? Otherwise what's the point in trying to define anything?

Did you turn to a pragmatist now?

Am not sure what you mean? Albeit I do believe I am somewhat the pragmatist.

Hey, did you catch the part about the frogs above? It's kind of the same argument don't you think? Ribbet ribbet ...

 

[Iacchus]

Of course arguing whether or not the universe has meaning is useless unless we can come to some consensus on what "meaning" is.

The Universe is like a flower, and the meaning is in its unfolding. And yes the birds do it and so do the bees.

 

[BillHoyt]

The Universe is like a flower, and the meaning is in its unfolding.

Don't wade out to the deep end of the kiddie pool without your swimmies on.

 

[Cleopatra]

Yes, but don't you think we should approach everything from the standpoint of wholeness? Otherwise what's the point in trying to define anything?

I don't get the dichotomy in that case, Iacchus. How can you describe a hand without referring to its fingers?

What you suggest would be of some essence if 5 fingers that existed separately decided to unite and form a hand.

Since we know that the fingers could not have existed independently how can we discuss about the whole and the partial here?


As always I am trying hard but I don't get you.You seem again charmed by something but I cannot specify by what.

Am not sure what you mean? Albeit I do believe I am somewhat the pragmatist.

To be honest that was a sophistry but what you say seem close to pragmatism indeed.

Hey, did you catch the part about the frogs above? It's kind of the same argument don't you think? Ribbet ribbet ...

The example of the frogs is a classic!

 

[ceo_esq]

Cleo, darling, we never see you in this neighborhood anymore.

 

[Cleopatra]

Cleo, darling, we never see you in this neighborhood anymore.]

Well, I cannot discuss about religion with people that behave like monkeys in banana time and stay calm the way you do but also, I cannot resist to Iacchus' charm. I have my weaknesses....

 

[Iacchus]

I don't get the dichotomy in that case, Iacchus. How can you describe a hand without referring to its fingers?

Do the fingers serve the function of the hand or, does the hand serve the function of the fingers? It's like the cart before the horse thing in other words.

What you suggest would be of some essence if 5 fingers that existed separately decided to unite and form a hand.

Actually, this is not the way I look at it, it's the way science looks at it, in its dissecting of all things (hence the idea of separateness) and it's refusal to look at how things relate to the function of whole. In other words wholeness which, usually implies transcendence, is out of the question.

Since we know that the fingers could not have existed independently how can we discuss about the whole and the partial here?

Well, what I'm suggesting is that we begin with the whole, and understand how everything (which it's comprised of) works in relation to it. And no, fingers do not exist independently from the hand.

As always I am trying hard but I don't get you.You seem again charmed by something but I cannot specify by what.

Well, maybe it's just a language barrier here?

To be honest that was a sophistry but what you say seem close to pragmatism indeed.

And here, I've been accused of being a wanna-be sophist as of late, but am really not up on that either?

The example of the frogs is a classic!

Ribbet ribbet ...

 

[Suggestologist]

I would suggest that when anything has an impact on its environment, it has meaning, realized by the observer or no. Especially when you think in terms of how many things have to happen that we're unaware of, before anything can happen that we are aware of. So yes, everything is related meaningwise in that sense.

Well, but the chain of cause-effect/cause-effect/cause-effect still has to reach a mind before meaning of preceding cause/effects can be evaluated. And if we don't know how the causal chain evolved, then there are unknown potential meanings; but the meaning only applies to the parts of the chain we do know about.

In other words, if a causal-chain unfolds and no mind is there to evaluate it (at any point); it has no meaning; but it has potential meaning in that if a mind had been there to evaluate it, it would have evaluated meaning to it. But if a causal-chain has no impact, neither sensorily nor on the thought-landscape of a mind, then it is meaningless to that mind.

 

[brian0918]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Universal Design

There is no need for insultant name calling.
It tends to encourage the target of the insult to resort to the same tactic which when reported by an observant, would eventually lead to either one of the two participants getting temporarily or permanently banned.

It it is not to our advantage to resort to this type of thing.
Neither does it add anything to the discussion. In fact, it tends to terminate it even before it has gotten a chance to develop.

After all, who likes to feel obligated to read that kind of thing or to deal with a person capable of flinging that kind of comment at another person.

Not me! I just simply include the person in my list of persona-non grata and go by the very effective policy of out of sight out of mind which very neatly resolves the irritational issue imediately.

Unthinking trash

Notice the smiley? That is supposed to indicate that I am joking. If it didn't indicate that to you, watch me care.

 

[Z]

At this point, I'm thinking that discussion will be more fruitful with Iacchus once he graduates elementary school.

Until he can understand that science looks at parts and at the whole, and analyzes them in relationship to each other, and OFTEN declares that a part is irrelevant to the whole, then further discussion is irrelevant.

This is the key failure of 'intelligent' design - too many parts that are irrelevant to the whole.

 

[Dancing David]

And what if its purpose was to serve existence? And there you have it folks. Without existence, there would be no sense of purpose. Which, is the way it is all the way up and down the scale.

In which case maybe what we need to ask, is who or what is responsible for existence, and the purpose thereof?

As I argues to Lifegazer, what if the creation of our Universe was accidental or an unintended consequence of something else.

The Grand Geometer finds that He has a Great and Urgent Need to make a Mighty Piss, and so he leaves his Drawing Table to go to the Heavenly Restroom. While He is creating Holy Urine, the great Cosmic Cat decides to stroll across the Drawing Table, and in this process spills the Bottle of Ink upon the Great Design.

What if this blot is the universe, and was unintended by the Creator?

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, but structure implies design. And how do you know there's not a catcher behind the plate, ready to catch the next curve ball pitched? Are you sure it's not all part of the same game plan?

And how do you know that The Ball was not grabbed from the Desk by the Mighty Crumb Snatcher and taken and dropped down the Sewer Grate and that the whole design is an accident?


Structure does not imply design, it implies consistancy of chaos!

 

[Dancing David]

Were the legs designed to fit the pants or, the pants designed to fit the legs? That's another thing, design implies protocol.

What if I wear a dress?

 

[Dancing David]

Do ants understand the purpose and/or nature of human beings? Hardly. But neither does that imply human beings are without purpose or, ants for that matter.

Uh, yeah, so?

The purpose of a living being is to be alive.

What about a virus or a prion, they are life, yet they serve no 'pupose', the word 'purpose' on;y has the meaning assigned to it by a human or
"Why do males have nipples?", theye xist yet they serve no purpose! So deign implies existance without purpose!

Hmmm.
[yoda]
Meaning from nipples of males you can find , hmm?
[/yoda]

 

[Dancing David]

Well. Meaning is a cause-effect type of relation. If you're not in a place to sense an effect on yourself; then the potential didn't become the actual.

Let's say that seeing a baby smile means you remember all the good times you had when your child was a baby, and that means you feel good. Well, if you're not there to see the baby when it smiles, then the potential meaning related to remembering your child as a baby does not become an actual meaning.

That is my meaning.

And a baby smiling often doesn't mean that the baby is happy either, it could be gas, or imitation.

Meaning is in the I of the beholder.

 

[Pixel42]

Re: Re: Universal Design

Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm /QUOTE]

Oh dear, there it is again.

I can only once again quote Douglas Adams' wonderful puddle analogy to illustrate the fallacy at the heart of this argument:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

To put it in (mostly) words of one syllable: The Universe is not the way it is so that we can exist as we do. We exist as we do because the Universe is the way it is.

Many current cosmological theories suggest a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes, in only a tiny fraction of which will the universal constants etc be suitable for life as we know it to arise. Which means that there will be an infinite number of such universes, as even the tiniest fraction of infinity is infinity.

That doesn't mean that the other 99.99% of Universes are lifeless, however. They may well contain completely different forms of life that could no more exist in our Universe than we could exist in theirs. Each would, however, fit into its own Universe as neatly as each puddle fits into its hole.

 

[brian0918]

Re: Re: Re: Universal Design

Oh dear, there it is again.

I can only once again quote Douglas Adams' wonderful puddle analogy to illustrate the fallacy at the heart of this argument:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

To put it in (mostly) words of one syllable: The Universe is not the way it is so that we can exist as we do. We exist as we do because the Universe is the way it is.

Many current cosmological theories suggest a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes, in only a tiny fraction of which will the universal constants etc be suitable for life as we know it to arise. Which means that there will be an infinite number of such universes, as even the tiniest fraction of infinity is infinity.

That doesn't mean that the other 99.99% of Universes are lifeless, however. They may well contain completely different forms of life that could no more exist in our Universe than we could exist in theirs. Each would, however, fit into its own Universe as neatly as each puddle fits into its hole.

Very well said!

(of course, the tiniest fraction, 0, of infinity, is not infinity. Pick a number, any number. )

 

[Ratman_tf]

Were the legs designed to fit the pants or, the pants designed to fit the legs? That's another thing, design implies protocol.

No, you sad misguided fool. Our legs fit into pants perfectly. But there were legs before pants. Obviously our legs were designed by a supreme being to one day fit into the pants of the future.

It's all part of the supreme beings grand plan for a universe full of pants.

I pity your shortsightedness.

 

[Ratman_tf]

What if I wear a dress?

Then ya better have some underwear on, ya pervert!

 

[Cleopatra]

Do the fingers serve the function of the hand or, does the hand serve the function of the fingers?

Denis, hands do not exist without the fingers the same way fingers do not exist without hands, so, there is no point here in wondering who serves whom.

Actually, this is not the way I look at it, it's the way science looks at it, in its dissecting of all things (hence the idea of separateness) and it's refusal to look at how things relate to the function of whole. In other words wholeness which, usually implies transcendence, is out of the question.

What are you talking about? This is not true. You confuse specialization with separatenes. I'd say that the nature of things dictate you the way you approach them.

Well, what I'm suggesting is that we begin with the whole, and understand how everything (which it's comprised of) works in relation to it.

This is what we already do.

And no, fingers do not exist independently from the hand.

So, it's wrong to wonder who serves whom.

Well, maybe it's just a language barrier here?

We can do that in Greek, Hebrew, Arabic,French, Ladino if it suits you better.