Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hanging around

Expand Messages
  • joksu57
    Hello Bradford & all! There has been quite a debate in the AT-forum with the AP-critics . Lately it has been hard to find the time even to read through all
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Bradford & all!

      There has been quite a debate in the AT-forum with the "AP-critics".
      Lately it has been hard to find the time even to read through all the
      posts. I have really been quite pre-occupied; so it is not possible
      for me to take part to those "heated discussions".

      I also have my doubts about the outcome of those debates, when the
      paradigms are so different. E.g. a human being in "anthro-paradigm"
      means something totally different compared to "scientific-
      materialistic" paradigm. When even the basic concepts used in a
      discussion can mean different things, it is hard to come to some
      reasonable conclusion. My respect, though, to everyone, who have the
      patience to explain the basics of spiritual science to critics (who
      obviously have some other agenda than understanding AP or Waldorf
      education).

      The accusations (about racism) against Dr. Steiner seem so stupid;
      they are (at their best) made by people who are more concerned about
      what is conventionally right, socially proper to say in our time,
      etc. etc. They are not concerned about thruth.

      Certain words from the Revelations come to my mind, when I think
      about the opponents of Dr. Steiner and Spiritual Science: "15 I know
      thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold
      or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor
      hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

      Seekers can come to spiritual movements with three "ways":
      through "bad karma" (something to compensate), through "good karma"
      (having done some "favours") and through dharma (a definite spiritual
      mission, something quite rare). Stern opponents are not lukewarm, and
      they get connected to spiritual movements through karma requiring
      some compensation in future incarnations (it is dubious to call
      this "bad karma"). The possible setback with this kind of "enter" is
      connected to future "power struggles". Strong intellectual abilities
      and ambition along with lack of spiritual vision can make a lousy
      leader…Well, something more to compensate later…

      Hey, I'm stopping now my participation to this subject or am I just
      explaining why I am not participating it at all … or what ever…

      Bradford wrote:
      (clip…)
      "Share, ask.. details.. I've down some of my homework and I know for
      a fact that Starbirgarden never failed to stir my heart from her
      different and solid vision of things. Joksu, Kevin, Maurice and
      dear, dear Cheese and Salsa, Danny, Harvey...all I know is that we
      are still here, however pre-occupied.

      I am certain that our love still shines.

      Let me explain to all parties, way back when I brought answers to
      the wonderfual translation letter of Joksu. I wrote it three times,
      three and each time I sent it off some electronic crisis occured. My
      laptop finally crashed and some of the richer morsels just, just
      disappeared as efforts to build the invisible bradford."
      (end of quote)

      Bradford, I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with the laptop
      and "translations problems". I am slow enough with English (=writing)
      and when german is included that really doesn't speed me up. But I am
      sure you got the "basic message" from the letter of Mr. Ervast.

      Many thanks to all the writers in this and AT-forum. There have been
      many interesting threads. I'll be around and sometimes I might even
      try to write something (hey, is this some kind of a "not-promising-
      too-much-campaign"…)

      Joksu
    • Maurice McCarthy
      ... With respect to materialism and how it has changed since Steiner s time I ve recently read Colin McGuinn s philosophical biography and am now reading Paul
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:46:27PM -0000 or thereabouts, joksu57 wrote:
        >
        > I also have my doubts about the outcome of those debates, when the
        > paradigms are so different. E.g. a human being in "anthro-paradigm"
        > means something totally different compared to "scientific-
        > materialistic" paradigm. When even the basic concepts used in a
        > discussion can mean different things, it is hard to come to some
        > reasonable conclusion. My respect, though, to everyone, who have the
        > patience to explain the basics of spiritual science to critics (who
        > obviously have some other agenda than understanding AP or Waldorf
        > education).
        >

        With respect to materialism and how it has changed since Steiner's time
        I've recently read Colin McGuinn's philosophical biography and am now
        reading Paul Churchland's "Matter and Consciousness". Both are intended
        for the lay reader but the latter especially is challenging.

        The big change is that the mind is almost accepted as a reality,
        distinct from matter. Almost all cognitive scientists, neurologists and
        Artificial Intelligence folk are funtionalists. In the terms of Human
        and Cosmic Thought this is a form of dynamism and is adjacent to a
        Leibnitzian-type monadology - which definitely affirms the existence of
        subjective entities.

        Chomsky is the man most responsible for this change - that the mind is
        born with a pre-configured modularity. As I see it this is within an ace
        of declaring the soul.

        Maurice
      • holderlin66
        ... Maurice McCarthy wrote: distinct from matter. Almost all cognitive scientists, neurologists and Artificial Intelligence folk are
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com,

          Maurice McCarthy <maurice.mccarthy@n...> wrote:

          "distinct from matter. Almost all cognitive scientists, neurologists
          and
          Artificial Intelligence folk are funtionalists."

          Bradford asks;

          functionalists or fun, as funtionalists... I think I like FUN
          better, although I suspect you meant, and to clarify, did you mean,
          FUNCTION?

          You wrote;

          "Chomsky is the man most responsible for this change - that the mind
          is
          born with a pre-configured modularity. As I see it this is within an
          ace of declaring the soul.

          Maurice

          Bradford comments;

          Pre-configured Modularity...funny I was thinking Pre-configured
          modality..so modularity, does modularity give more mobility
          potential then something more hard wired like modality. It is is
          always interesting to discover Terms of Endearment or Terms of
          agreement..New Terms - Hard wired, Modularity, Modality, to
          determine soul.

          So Maurice if you might widen these two out, function and modulaity.
          Functional brain apparatus as standard issue or unique modularity as
          user friendly, user designed?
        • Maurice McCarthy
          Oops! Yes, I meant funCtionalist. ... Let me first give my phrasing of how I try to see clearly in this. At issue is the relation of the mind and the brain,
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Oops! Yes, I meant funCtionalist.


            On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 03:01:25PM -0000 or thereabouts, holderlin66 wrote:
            > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com,
            >
            > Maurice McCarthy <maurice.mccarthy@n...> wrote:
            >
            > "distinct from matter. Almost all cognitive scientists, neurologists
            > and Artificial Intelligence folk are funtionalists."
            >
            > Bradford asks;
            >
            > functionalists or fun, as funtionalists... I think I like FUN
            > better, although I suspect you meant, and to clarify, did you mean,
            > FUNCTION?

            Let me first give my phrasing of how I try to see clearly in this. At
            issue is the relation of the mind and the brain, which all consider most
            difficult. Especially unpopular are dualisms Substance Dualism is after
            Descartes and considered the Folk Psychology view, where Folk Psychology
            is the worldview of the man in the street - a naive realism modified by
            experience and education.

            As I see it the relation of mind and brain is, in the abstract,
            analogous to number and matter, respectively. No one seems to think the
            relation of number and matter mysterious - not that I've seen. All forms
            of physical matter can be described by numbers and operations of numbers
            (number itself is a counted unity and so an operation of its own and a
            definite quantity). Matter is the What of a thing, Number is the How of
            the same thing. The What cannot exist without the How because its How is
            exactly how it became what it is. In itself anything is at once a What
            and a How in undivided unity. Perception strips out the How and leaves
            the What. Thinking reveals the How and re-unites it to the what.

            The mind is the How of the brain, which is a What. Thus we avoid
            substance dualism but by its nature consciousness has to be a duality.
            The brain is always structured by the mind. "Use it or lose it." is a
            phrase beloved by Susan Greenfield, the best known neurologist in
            Britain. The brain structure dissolves if it is not supported by its
            How - because it is the How which does the structuring. Somehow she
            still sees the brain matter as primary but the penny will drop sooner or
            later. She's teetering on the brink of the realisation, her own first
            little threshold.

            Got to go - call to the shops
            Will be back later.

            Big M ;-)

            >
            > You wrote;
            >
            > "Chomsky is the man most responsible for this change - that the mind
            > is
            > born with a pre-configured modularity. As I see it this is within an
            > ace of declaring the soul.
            >
            > Maurice
            >
            > Bradford comments;
            >
            > Pre-configured Modularity...funny I was thinking Pre-configured
            > modality..so modularity, does modularity give more mobility
            > potential then something more hard wired like modality. It is is
            > always interesting to discover Terms of Endearment or Terms of
            > agreement..New Terms - Hard wired, Modularity, Modality, to
            > determine soul.
            >
            > So Maurice if you might widen these two out, function and modulaity.
            > Functional brain apparatus as standard issue or unique modularity as
            > user friendly, user designed?
            >
            >
          • Hogie McM
            Re: The What and the How in relation to the Mind and Brain. Is not the Number just an expression of the How, and not the How itself? So it would seem to me we
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Re: The What and the How in relation to the Mind and Brain.
              Is not the Number  just an expression of the How, and not the How itself?
              So it would seem to me we are dealing with a Triune model, and not a Dualism.
               
              and the What is perhaps, yes, an expression of an underlying reality,
              so are we thus dealing with a Quaternity?
               
              The Number comes from the Ahrimanic realm, level 3, (inspired consciousness),
              from the deep unconscious Will, and enters into the Level 1 conceptual consciousness,
              the Mind (of the the Luciferic realm), which has entered human evolution as a result
              of the War in Heaven with Michael (1839-1879), as he thre Lucifer out of the
              Spiritual worlds in to the Earthly worlds of Human nature?
               
              The Brain is the physical structure then that manifests from the activities
              of the Spirits of Form, and which is perceived by the Physical Senses only as a reflection,
              within the Catch-22 of the brain activites itself, wherein my inquiry falls to pieces
              a bit, or at least gets convoluted.
               
              Hogie
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:27 AM
              Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Hanging around

              Oops! Yes, I meant funCtionalist.


              On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 03:01:25PM -0000 or thereabouts, holderlin66 wrote:
              > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com,
              >
              > Maurice McCarthy <maurice.mccarthy@n...> wrote:
              >
              > "distinct from matter. Almost all cognitive scientists, neurologists
              > and Artificial Intelligence folk are funtionalists."
              >
              > Bradford asks;
              >
              > functionalists or fun, as funtionalists... I think I like FUN
              > better, although I suspect you meant, and to clarify, did you mean,
              > FUNCTION?

              Let me first give my phrasing of how I try to see clearly in this. At
              issue is the relation of the mind and the brain, which all consider most
              difficult. Especially unpopular are dualisms Substance Dualism is after
              Descartes and considered the Folk Psychology view, where Folk Psychology
              is the worldview of the man in the street - a naive realism modified by
              experience and education.

              As I see it the relation of mind and brain is, in the abstract,
              analogous to number and matter, respectively. No one seems to think the
              relation of number and matter mysterious - not that I've seen. All forms
              of physical matter can be described by numbers and operations of numbers
              (number itself is a counted unity and so an operation of its own and a
              definite quantity). Matter is the What of a thing, Number is the How of
              the same thing. The What cannot exist without the How because its How is
              exactly how it became what it is. In itself anything is at once a What
              and a How in undivided unity. Perception strips out the How and leaves
              the What. Thinking reveals the How and re-unites it to the what.

              The mind is the How of the brain, which is a What. Thus we avoid
              substance dualism but by its nature consciousness has to be a duality.
              The brain is always structured by the mind. "Use it or lose it." is a
              phrase beloved by Susan Greenfield, the best known neurologist in
              Britain. The brain structure dissolves if it is not supported by its
              How - because it is the How which does the structuring. Somehow she
              still sees the brain matter as primary but the penny will drop sooner or
              later. She's teetering on the brink of the realisation, her own first
              little threshold.

              Got to go - call to the shops
              Will be back later.

              Big M ;-)

              >
              > You wrote;
              >
              > "Chomsky is the man most responsible for this change - that the mind
              > is
              > born with a pre-configured modularity. As I see it this is within an
              > ace of declaring the soul.
              >
              > Maurice
              >
              > Bradford comments;
              >
              > Pre-configured Modularity...funny I was thinking Pre-configured
              > modality..so modularity, does modularity give more mobility
              > potential then something more hard wired like modality. It is is
              > always interesting to discover Terms of Endearment or Terms of
              > agreement..New Terms - Hard wired, Modularity, Modality, to
              > determine soul.
              >
              > So Maurice if you might widen these two out, function and modulaity.
              > Functional brain apparatus as standard issue or unique modularity as
              > user friendly, user designed?
              >
              >


              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
              Unsubscribe:
              anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
              List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 


            • holderlin66
              ... Hogie McM wrote: The Number comes from the Ahrimanic realm, level 3, (inspired consciousness), ... conceptual consciousness, ... evolution
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com,

                "Hogie McM" <hogie@a...> wrote:

                The Number comes from the Ahrimanic realm, level 3, (inspired
                consciousness),
                > from the deep unconscious Will, and enters into the Level 1
                conceptual consciousness,
                > the Mind (of the the Luciferic realm), which has entered human
                evolution as a result
                > of the War in Heaven with Michael (1839-1879), as he thre Lucifer
                out of the
                > Spiritual worlds in to the Earthly worlds of Human nature?
                >
                > The Brain is the physical structure then that manifests from the
                activities
                > of the Spirits of Form, and which is perceived by the Physical
                Senses only as a reflection,
                > within the Catch-22 of the brain activites itself, wherein my
                inquiry falls to pieces
                > a bit, or at least gets convoluted.

                http://faculty.virginia.edu/kubovylab/101_97/Lectures/Lecture02.html

                Dreams and modularity

                Five features of dreams
                Intense emotion
                Illogical content and organization
                Clear sensory impressions
                Uncritical acceptance
                Difficulty of remembering the dream

                The principle of modularity
                The mind is not controlled by a single agency
                It is more like a collection of specialized devices: modules
                In dreams some of the modules that work when we are awake are turned
                off; others work harder
                Another example of modularity: autism, a condition that may not
                affect intelligence, but prevents the individual from understanding
                others

                WHERE AM I?
                Mind = soul = spirit
                Why "mind"?
                Is the mind in the heart or in the brain?
                Aristotle (384-322 BCE): heart
                Galen (129-199 CE): brain

                Galen's brain theory
                Experiments on Barbary apes
                Squeeze heart and brain
                Tie off nerve from brain to vocal chords

                Facts about the cortex of the brain

                THE BRAIN
                Total cortical area = 1.3 x 105 mm2
                = a square sheet about 14" on a side
                Cortical thickness = 1.7 mm
                about 1/16" thick
                Number of cortical neurons = 1010
                10,000,000,000 = 10 billion
                Density of cortical neurons = 105/mm3
                1,638,706,400 = about 1.7 billion in a 1" cube

                THE BRAIN
                Number of synapses per neuron = 4x103
                4,000
                Axons: 3 km/mm3
                80,000 miles in a 1" cube
                Number of corpus callosum fibers = 5x108
                500,000,000 = 500 million
                Electrical activity of the brain
              • Maurice McCarthy
                Dear Hogie, Please forgive me for not answering you directly. In a sense you go on to say what I wanted to add. If one holds, in fixity, to the point of view
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Hogie,

                  Please forgive me for not answering you directly. In a sense you go on
                  to say what I wanted to add.

                  If one holds, in fixity, to the point of view that the How is primary
                  then what one has done is turn the How into a What. In this case the
                  What has become a How. So what is the difference? Why should anyone have
                  an inclination to prefer one to the other?

                  The What is simply given so that the What turned into a How is a passive
                  How - and the name for a passive How is condition. In all ultimate
                  matters it is necessary to take a dialectical pont of view. Since the
                  spirit is an ultimate then one must look "through both sides of the
                  window". We must at once grasp the view from "inside the room" (the
                  spiritual and 'soular') and also from outside the room (the
                  materialistic). Your location defines your fixity. Thus materialism
                  contains a certain truth but is one sided.

                  The extreme form of materialism is today called Eliminative Materialism
                  - sooner or later we will all realise that colours, for example, do not
                  really exist. It is not popular but not that easy to refute, in spite
                  of appearances.

                  Since the origin of explanation, the supreme form of knowledge without
                  which no other kind can be affirmed to exist, demands an undefined
                  content and an undefinable activity (the willingness to understand -
                  which is Goethe's eternal feminine, the Classical Helen) then it is not
                  the content but the activity which must exist. The activity is the Light
                  of the World. But the two cannot relate without another - the impulse to
                  knowledge. The content lends its impulse,its mystery, to the activity.
                  The activity is the willingness to grasp this impulse. (Impulse is the
                  non-manifest Father, Willingness is His Son - Sophia! Sophia is receptive
                  to all kinds of knowledge.)

                  The two questions for realism/physicalism/materialism, other minds and
                  self-consciousness, may be stated thus:

                  Willingness can only become a subject by parcelling itself. And the
                  matter for parcel is content. I only know my own mind. How can I
                  therefore know that the stone under my shoe is not conscious?

                  Self-consciousness results from the activity of willingness being
                  reflected by the content to willingness itself. The active is always to
                  be preferred to the passive. (Aristotle - i.e. Steiner in a former
                  incarnation.) The active is that which makes the passive what it is.

                  Think I've not been clear here, but got to go.
                  Maurice.





                  On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:23:21AM -0800 or thereabouts, Hogie McM wrote:
                  > Re: The What and the How in relation to the Mind and Brain.
                  > Is not the Number just an expression of the How, and not the How itself?
                  > So it would seem to me we are dealing with a Triune model, and not a Dualism.
                  >
                  > and the What is perhaps, yes, an expression of an underlying reality,
                  > so are we thus dealing with a Quaternity?
                  >
                  > The Number comes from the Ahrimanic realm, level 3, (inspired consciousness),
                  > from the deep unconscious Will, and enters into the Level 1 conceptual consciousness,
                  > the Mind (of the the Luciferic realm), which has entered human evolution as a result
                  > of the War in Heaven with Michael (1839-1879), as he thre Lucifer out of the
                  > Spiritual worlds in to the Earthly worlds of Human nature?
                  >
                  > The Brain is the physical structure then that manifests from the activities
                  > of the Spirits of Form, and which is perceived by the Physical Senses only as a reflection,
                  > within the Catch-22 of the brain activites itself, wherein my inquiry falls to pieces
                  > a bit, or at least gets convoluted.
                  >
                  > Hogie
                  >
                • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
                  To the AP critics- A person who has a cat by the tail knows a whole lot more about cats than someone who has just read about them. -Mark Twain I didn t
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To the AP critics-  "A person who has a cat by the tail knows a whole lot more about cats than someone who has just read about them.  -Mark Twain
                    I didn't think such a thing as certainty reguarding spiritual matters existed until finding AP.   The Light feels good,  The Light feels real, I think I'll stay here where the Light unfolds, for the sake of human kind, I'll stay where the Light feels good and true.   Chees
                  • Maurice McCarthy
                    Ned Block (philosopher NYU) defines functionalism as the theory that mental states are constituted by their causal relations to each other and to sensory
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ned Block (philosopher NYU) defines functionalism as the theory that
                      "mental states are constituted by their causal relations to each
                      other and to sensory inputs and behavioural outputs". He calls the
                      scientific concept of kidney a function - it filters the blood. This
                      lends itself well to the computer analogy in that the function is
                      'software'. The mental is no longer identified with the physical but has
                      a level of its own so that psychology has a content of its own divorced
                      from the physical. Reductionism is out.

                      I reckon that because 'causal' remains a physical notion for the
                      functionalist then this is why they are attacked for no theory of the
                      quality of the senses. Functionalism is a sort of hybrid
                      realist-dynamist theory. They are sure to reject any proposal that
                      concepts and ideas have an objective validity but will see them as
                      linguistic description only (They use Wittgenstein's theory of meaning.)
                      This is the battle to win through for a proper epistemology, that
                      concepts have a formative influence. They put language as the generator
                      of the conceptual. In terms of time they have a point but not in terms
                      of explanation. Explanation has a priority in being.

                      Maurice
                    • joksu57
                      Hello Maurice! In the 70 s when I studied Steiner s Philosophy of Freedom, philosophy became very interesting subject to me. Inspired by Dr. Steiner s views I
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Maurice!

                        In the 70's when I studied Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom,
                        philosophy became very interesting subject to me. Inspired by Dr.
                        Steiner's views I started studying theoretical philosophy in a
                        university in late 70's. Of course academic philosophy was some sort
                        of a disappointment after PoF. But the history of philosophy was
                        worth the trouble and from "new philosophy" e.g. the paradigm-concept
                        of Thomas S. Kuhn was a helpful tool. After the "university years" I
                        have propably been too lazy in studying philosophy and scientific
                        subjects (there are just too many esoteric subjects to mess with!).

                        It is nice to hear that consciousness is nowadays not treated as a
                        mere attribute of matter. But still there are grave differences. We
                        can take again the example of a "human being". So some modern
                        thinkers can take the attitude, where the mind is almost accepted as
                        a reality. When we think what man is after Saturn-, Sun-, Moon- and
                        Earth-periods, the "accuracy-level" is remarkably different. Of
                        course a human being is extremely large and difficult concept to
                        study, because "we are the microcosm". What makes the subject even
                        more harder is the fact, that we are in a "halfway position" and
                        probably in Vulcan-period we can see, what it really means to be a
                        human being. So there remains a lot of work in "bridging" the
                        different paradigms.

                        It is fine that you have interest and capability in this "philosophy-
                        business". Please keep on reporting about your research!

                        Warm Regards
                        Joksu

                        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy
                        <maurice.mccarthy@n...> wrote:
                        > On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:46:27PM -0000 or thereabouts, joksu57
                        wrote:
                        > >
                        > > I also have my doubts about the outcome of those debates, when
                        the
                        > > paradigms are so different. E.g. a human being in "anthro-
                        paradigm"
                        > > means something totally different compared to "scientific-
                        > > materialistic" paradigm. When even the basic concepts used in a
                        > > discussion can mean different things, it is hard to come to some
                        > > reasonable conclusion. My respect, though, to everyone, who have
                        the
                        > > patience to explain the basics of spiritual science to critics
                        (who
                        > > obviously have some other agenda than understanding AP or Waldorf
                        > > education).
                        > >
                        >
                        > With respect to materialism and how it has changed since Steiner's
                        time
                        > I've recently read Colin McGuinn's philosophical biography and am
                        now
                        > reading Paul Churchland's "Matter and Consciousness". Both are
                        intended
                        > for the lay reader but the latter especially is challenging.
                        >
                        > The big change is that the mind is almost accepted as a reality,
                        > distinct from matter. Almost all cognitive scientists, neurologists
                        and
                        > Artificial Intelligence folk are funtionalists. In the terms of
                        Human
                        > and Cosmic Thought this is a form of dynamism and is adjacent to a
                        > Leibnitzian-type monadology - which definitely affirms the
                        existence of
                        > subjective entities.
                        >
                        > Chomsky is the man most responsible for this change - that the mind
                        is
                        > born with a pre-configured modularity. As I see it this is within
                        an ace
                        > of declaring the soul.
                        >
                        > Maurice
                      • Maurice McCarthy
                        Dear Joksu Thanks for the encouragement. I battle on as best I can to understand and I ve always had an interest in the Big Issues. Years ago I played chess to
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 3, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Joksu

                          Thanks for the encouragement. I battle on as best I can to understand
                          and I've always had an interest in the Big Issues. Years ago I played
                          chess to a minor international level and though I lost more than I won
                          there is perhaps only a single game in my recollection which I lost
                          through a lack of strategy oversight. It was in the details that I lost
                          my way - and 'the devil is in the details', as the saying goes.

                          Essentially what I am trying to say in these little words is that RS
                          died a whole human life-time ago teaching us the principle that reality
                          alters and alters continually, even though some things appear more
                          stable than others. It is a common human failing to stay with habit of
                          thought rather than re-think afresh and we anthroposophists have just
                          this failing as much as anyone else. This does not mean that RS is
                          irrelevant (words from the spirit are the most stable of all and when
                          Christ says 'verily, I say unto ye' then listen because what comes next
                          is true for every level of consciousness and all time. This is why it is
                          put 'verily'.) RS is not irrelevant but habit ossifies his words which
                          slowly lose contact with living reality. It is up to us to rework the
                          truth in our changed circumstances.`

                          McGinn is a "monkey-hanger" - a term of endearment for a chap from
                          Hartlepool in the North East of England. During the Napoleonic Wars they
                          famously hung a monkey there for being a French spy ... ?!? (True story)
                          In "The Making of a Philosopher" he writes to the effect that:
                          In the technical works such as Syntactical Structures Chomsky argued
                          that a child could not learn a language by the Behaviourist's stimilus
                          and response but had to come pre-prepared with an implicit grasp of
                          grammar. One of the key arguments was the limited resources a child
                          posseses to develop rich grammar.

                          Functionalism now easily arises from the observed necessity to
                          thrust the mind into stimulus and response. Jerry Fodor is McGinn's
                          colleague at Rutgers and McGinn says that he is generally acknowledged
                          to be the best philosopher of mind in the world. (Anglo-Saxon philosophy
                          is still a very male-ego oriented thing today.) Fodor's Language of
                          Thought 1975 is considered one of the first robust statements of
                          Functionalim which now puts the first, if still physicalised, emphasis
                          on the How as opposed to the what.

                          From our position we generally think that Computer Intelligence is just
                          baloney from first inspection. I still agree but this speaking from
                          habit. Be warned - there is a lot more credit to AI than we at first
                          give it.

                          Maurice




                          On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:11:00AM -0000 or thereabouts, joksu57 wrote:
                          > Hello Maurice!
                          >
                          > In the 70's when I studied Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom,
                          > philosophy became very interesting subject to me. Inspired by Dr.
                          > Steiner's views I started studying theoretical philosophy in a
                          > university in late 70's. Of course academic philosophy was some sort
                          > of a disappointment after PoF. But the history of philosophy was
                          > worth the trouble and from "new philosophy" e.g. the paradigm-concept
                          > of Thomas S. Kuhn was a helpful tool. After the "university years" I
                          > have propably been too lazy in studying philosophy and scientific
                          > subjects (there are just too many esoteric subjects to mess with!).
                          >
                          > It is nice to hear that consciousness is nowadays not treated as a
                          > mere attribute of matter. But still there are grave differences. We
                          > can take again the example of a "human being". So some modern
                          > thinkers can take the attitude, where the mind is almost accepted as
                          > a reality. When we think what man is after Saturn-, Sun-, Moon- and
                          > Earth-periods, the "accuracy-level" is remarkably different. Of
                          > course a human being is extremely large and difficult concept to
                          > study, because "we are the microcosm". What makes the subject even
                          > more harder is the fact, that we are in a "halfway position" and
                          > probably in Vulcan-period we can see, what it really means to be a
                          > human being. So there remains a lot of work in "bridging" the
                          > different paradigms.
                          >
                          > It is fine that you have interest and capability in this "philosophy-
                          > business". Please keep on reporting about your research!
                          >
                          > Warm Regards
                          > Joksu
                        • Maurice McCarthy
                          Bradford asked about modules Chomsky holds intelligence to be of separate compartments and not an infinitely plastic unity. There is one for language but to
                          Message 12 of 13 , Mar 3, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bradford asked about modules

                            Chomsky holds intelligence to be of separate compartments and not an
                            infinitely plastic unity. There is one for language but to him it is
                            specifically human. Animal or alien tongues may easily be
                            unintelligible to a human. Intelligences are separate things - I think
                            he is saying species specific.

                            McGinn finds this relevant to what he calls Metaphilosophy, the
                            philosophy beyond philosophy or philosophy of philosophy. I ask what is
                            the love of knowledge for the love of knowledge? The pure willingness to
                            understand - Christ as Anthropo-sophia, human wisdom. He say
                            metaphilosophy is the most neglected and difficult aspect in all
                            philosophy.

                            Maurice.
                          • Maurice McCarthy
                            Children do not imitate speech, they create it: Lap me, Nanny! (My daughter at about 2 years old) Maurice
                            Message 13 of 13 , Mar 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Children do not imitate speech, they create it:

                              Lap me, Nanny! (My daughter at about 2 years old)

                              Maurice
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.