"Perhaps this ordering and this way of looking at things avoids the
extreme reductionism (or "nothing buttery") of "consciousness is nothing
but biology," "biology is nothing but chemistry," "chemistry is nothing
but physics," and "the universe is nothing but matter."
I thought about this some more. Let me try again.
Assertion 1: "Chemistry is nothing more than physics." IOW, if we
understood physics better, we could explain chemistry.
Assertion 2. Biology is nothing more than physics/chemistry. IOW, if we
understood physics/chemistry better, we could explain biology.
Assertion 3. Consciousness is nothing more than
physics/chemistry/biology. IOW, if we understood
physics/chemistry/biology better, we could explain consciousness.
If asked to agree/disagree with the above, I'd say
1. Yes
2. Maybe, but I think not.
3. No.
It seems to me that the above formulation gets to many of the root
questions we debate here. I could be wrong.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 18:26:19 EST