Hi Romansh,
I still ask the question do we understand Og's point of view?
Sure. I think.
Og's universe is one of cause and effect. All outcomes, including human behavior, are predictable. (Og is that correct?) There is no corner of existence which science can't define to a nicety. I'd have to read over the thread again, but I also recall there being an issue with subjective consciousness.
No problem with a lot of this for the most part. However, with human behavior and subjective consciousness things, as far as I'm concerned, get a bit muddy.
Much of any behavior is a matter of cause and effect. However I'm just not convinced that there isn't more to the equation. Since I'm language oriented and not science oriented I'm caused to look at things by analogy. The universe is not deterministic. It's probabilistic. Complexity allows for a number of probable outcomes the prediction of which is uncertain.
Science is not about uncertain predictions.
From within this uncertainty, methinks, arises art.
Og may be absolutely correct. The complexity of which I speak may be just a finely woven net from which, eventually, we will be able to absolutely predict the outcomes of human behavior. However, my nature, for whatever cause, has always been profoundly uncomfortable with paradigms that are locked up tight.
I like my circles broken, like the JCF logo.
My intuition guides my way. Whether my intuition is pushed by firing neurons or vice versa or some third undetermined, or unknowable, possibility...???
That's why I keep saying, "There's
always the next level."
Given the proper conditions magical things happen. Take two substances of defined qualities and combine them with the result being a third substance with new qualities completely different from the original two.
Science can tell us that it does happen. Maybe it can say how.
But it will never say why.
I'm really into why.
But here I've spent most of this post explaining my mind, not Og's. Sometimes my keyboard just runs away with me.
Now
that is predictable.