From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
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.
John: Here's a set of related questions for fun:
1. Does physics have a conceptual vocabulary that is adequate to handle all
the phenomena & questions that chemistry must deal with?
2. Does physics/chemistry have a conceptual vocabulary that is adequate to
handle all the phenomena & questions that biology must deal with?
3. Does physics/chemistry/biology have a conceptual vocabulary that is
adequate to handle all the phenomena & questions that a study of
consciousness must deal with?
I think a case could be made for saying that each time we go "up" the
disciplinary ladder (related to the complexity of the systems whose behavior
is under scrutiny) from physics-->chemistry-->biology-->consciousness we
encounter the need to expand our conceptual vocabulary to deal with
phenomena/behavior not exhibited by simpler systems.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 21:02:04 EST