Re: Dennett's bad word and Johnson's question

From: Tedd Hadley (hadley@reliant.yxi.com)
Date: Fri Mar 24 2000 - 19:08:47 EST

  • Next message: Allen & Diane Roy: "Re: Dating Old Rocks"

    Bertvan@aol.com writes
      in message <19.21a0435.260bb13d@aol.com>:
       
       Thanks for your comments, I find that we're mostly in agreement
       on the big picture, but have a few differences on details.

     <snip>
    > However most people I've regarded as materialists didn't
    > object to the popular definition of the term. There was nothing
    > tentative about their assertion that "everything real" can be
    > explained as consisting of matter and energy.

       While I agree with your observation that anti-religious crusades
       exist and the above assertion may often be driven by that, I
       also wonder if it is possible to think of matter and energy as
       still very mysterious "entities" after all this time that just
       might be capable of more than previously thought. Rather than
       assuming that a materialistic conclusion diminishes or reduces
       human experience, we can do the reverse and conclude that matter
       and energy are far more complicated and mysterious than we ever
       suspected.

       Or we may yet observe a consistent affect that resists classification
       as either matter or energy. (Have the IDs already found it?
       Well, I'm watching and waiting.)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 24 2000 - 19:08:29 EST