| Re: ...Science Reinvents God... by Stuart Kauffman |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Sep 17, 2008 16:55
On Sep 17, 4:15 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:> "Damien Valentine" gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e0e7cfd8-d397-4e2c-95ba-6412131a6e4a@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 4:41 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:
>>> re·spon·si·ble
>
>> 1 a: liable to be called on to answer
>> b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary
>> cause, motive, or agent >
> Yes, exactly. A "process" --a series of events that create a
> particular result" -- cannot be "called on to answer" or "called to
> account" for anything. A person who set that process in motion can.
> It doesn't make any sense to blame or praise gravity for drawing water
> downhill, now does it? Or nuclear fusion for making the Sun shine?
>
> ...................
>
> A decision is typically the result of a series of events.
> So is a storm, an idea or the builders of a house.
> A process, a system or a person is nothing more than semantics.
>
> The definition has nothing to say about that which is being
> credited as responsible.
You just don't want to name those names, and to otherwise give those
credits wherever the good or bad credit is due.
Without his trusty brown-nosed minions (aka Zionist/Nazis), the likes
of Hitler couldn't have accomplished 90%% of his world domination plot
or coo. (that's 90%% fewer dead and 90%% less other collateral damage).
Of those going along with the flow or otherwise along for the ride, as
such are just as much if not more so responsible for the consequences
of their combined actions.
~ BG
| 
