Platt,
Platt Holden wrote:
>
> As for eternal static patterns, the problem with assuming there are none
> is the same as assuming there are no absolutes. Both are self-
> contradictory.
Only if stated under the assumption that the statement is to be
processed under the eye of two-valued logic. In any case, I was being
critical of the assumption that there ARE eternal, non-tautological
static patterns, and it is easy enough to knock that down by pointing
one out.
A while back I said that metaphysical statements should be thought of as
being preface by "I invite you to think that ..." or just "I think (or
don't think) that ..." rather than "It is true that ...". So would you
still consider it self-contradictory if I said:
I don't think that there are any eternal non-tautological static
patterns, because
a) I haven't run across any
b) the mystics say there aren't
c) to think there are leads us back to dualism, and its antinomies (and
would violate the MOQ, since it would entail that DQ and sq are two
separate realities, rather than being a dependently co-originating
manifestation of Quality.)
> But that being said, we live with contradictions every day,
> like the present never changes but everything that changes changes in
> the present. (I wonder how those trying to create artificial intelligence
> will handle such paradoxes?)
Indeed. It was realizing something like this (that we must be in some
sense outside of time to be aware of time's passing) that caused me to
drop out of the Cognitive Science program that I was in.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST