Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > >>Glen<< > >>Going back to the original point, I maintain that both the > act of creation and the act of making occur within what I call > sensory-motor interactions, not somehow "beyond" or behind them.<< > No, *nobody* can convince you. He/she can show you but you're the one > that has.. to see / experience this difference :-) (this is an > axiomatic level) --Mikhail
It's not clear to me what you're saying, here. Are you simply saying that I'm stubborn? [grin] Yes, that's true ... and I'm proud of it. As a good friend once told me: "If your mind is too closed, nothing can get in. But if your mind is too open, everything falls out." Or are you simply saying that a metaphysical/supernatural hypothesis like your "creation is beyond language" is a belief that cannot be debated? One either accepts it or one doesn't and no argument is powerful enough to change one's position? In that sense, I guess we agree, because I believe the claim: "creation is beyond language" to be a religious claim. I don't believe the claim. But, just because it's religious on its face doesn't mean we can't shave down the concept of "creation" (like you did by distinguishing "making" from "creation") and construct some type of scientific (testable) claim. For example, we might propose that: Non-linguistic animals can spontaneously begin using novel food gathering methods. "Novel" meaning "never before observed in this species". The we can leave it up to the metaphysicians as to whether or not "novelty" and "creation" are related. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
