On 18 Mar, 22:41, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:

http://www.answernot42.com/index.html

On 18 Mar, 22:42, someone2 btinternet.com> wrote:

I was wondering if any physicalists on this group had any defence to
the article to suggest that it was in any way reasonable to remain a
physicalist? My lecturers while helping me by pointing to issues that
need to be covered haven't suggested any defence against it.

someone2 wrote:

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/gjs/rmchomsky.htm

"someone2" btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:e6c1a0eb-c67a-4f85-9add-e3a91195e00b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

It's not Hawkings, it is Hawking. Somebody who can't spell that is not worth
reading.

And we remember your rantings last year, someone2. You kept moving the
goalposts, avoiding to respond to arguments, repeating the same garbage over
and over. You are a waste of bandwidth.

regards
Milan

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:42:10 -0700, someone2 wrote:

"It was Steven Hawkings who suggested, based on the assertion that the
physicalist foundation stone was sound, that understanding of reality was
the realm of physicists, and that philosophers were reduced to the
analysis of language."

The physicalist is 'reduced' to the analysis of numbers.

The metaphorical nature of numbers removes it from being a 'stone' much
less a 'foundation' to understanding reality. Knowledge here is quit
different than understanding. Maybe this is a short cut argument.

Anywho, the brain/tree diagrams are not an appropriate representation of
'reality' unless you want to give up a huge amount of ground.

It isn't only the tree that is seen nor is the tree only seen. Trees can
not be removed from their entire physical context, even to the point of
the stars and sun 'above'. Nor can the observer be removed from theirs.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:42:33 -0700, someone2 wrote:

The case you seem to be making is basically, mystery is god.

Ok. However, this does not prove god outside of an easy declaration.

Since you are using one of my favorites, The Hitchhikers Guide.." as your
hook here.. 42, as an answer, meant nothing without first computing a
good question for the answer. The same thing goes for god.

I myself will stick with 42.

On 19 Mar, 12:23, "andy-k" wrote:

Yes an article on Materialism, you didn't point which points countered
the points made in the article supplied.

On 19 Mar, 14:16, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

On 19 Mar, 13:50, "Milan" yahoo.com> wrote: