The problem here is that you are assuming there is such a thing as 'essence', that living organisms have an 'essence', a 'who/what they really are', that they are 'things an sich'. As the history of Western philosophy shows, this 'essence' is a difficult thing to pinpoint or define. Like I said above, this is a tricky issue, as it assumes man has 'essence'. An alternative is to think in terms of 'who can get along with whom, and with whom not'. Say, if I see someone dressed as a hippie or a beatnik, or an Aboriginal, or an Ayn Rand fan it means that I will not get along with such a person. I predict that the quality of any relationship I might have with them will be bad or insignificant to me. So instead of thinking in terms of 'essence', it is possible to think in terms of 'predicted quality of interaction'. This seems rather accurate and seems to be a good guideline for action that is satisfactory to the individual pursuing it. However, this alternative is, of course, not politically correct or 'humanistic' etc.
Hawking also says that the disease affects his thinking. Since he cannot use the chalkboard or paper and the usual requisities, he has to do his computations in his head. This is one reason how he has a different approach to thinking about things. What we usually consider handicaps can sometimes help produce input that we value.
Differentiation between sub-groupings and isolated populations of the same species can be made just fine. Get a haircut you hippy! Humans judge each other on looks just fine. So what? Not sure what you mean by superficial effects of the environment. Consequently there is no distinction between physical and mental as the brain is quite a physical entity. There is a distinction between cognition and non-cognition... for example emotional health vs pancreatic health.
* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATORS' COMMUNITY * * * * Hey both of you guys (and everybody else): This is a science forum so please comport yourselves like scientists. Human Science is even one of our science subforums; it's not like Politics or Art where it can be difficult to apply the scientific method to the discussions. Furthermore, the O.P. raised a question that can be easily analyzed with proper scientific discourse, even if "human science" is not exactly particle physics. Please don't turn this into a name-calling playground squabble. Personal insults are a violation of the rules so don't sink to that level. You're getting pretty close here. Challenge the statements, don't try to psychoanalyze the motivation behind them.
So what is the statement ? Wanderer seems to disagree with himself about that. Btw. I take it you didn't mean me when you said 'you're getting pretty close here'..
I hope Satyr continues the conversation. I want to see where he ends up delineating objective / subjective and where his bias stumps him.
Well, I suppose I didn't quote the worst offender. "If I'm so stupid then why don't you explain it to me" (or something to that effect) doesn't exactly qualify as an "insult." But still it's playground talk, not lab talk. It doesn't move the discussion forward. Try to maintain a reasonable standard of discourse and not let someone else drag you down to his level. I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but epidemics of trash talk have been known to break out on this subforum because of the controversial subjects it naturally attracts, and I'm just trying to keep a lid on the trashcan. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok, in my defense though.. my reaction was because the discussion wasn't moving forward to begin with. Thanks for your reply though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thank you SciKingdom Lords and Ladies for derailing another thread and making it into a discussion over the King's policies. As an exqmple of things to come I envy your position as SciKindom's elite ruling class. I would tell you what I really think, but my 30 day probation isn't over and the morality police of this smelly Kingdom is posted outside my shack watching every move I make, ready to throw me outside these thick, hard, dense walls. Send the King my regards and tell him he's naked....again.
It's hardly elitism to remind members that this is a place of science. As I noted, this particular board by its nature attracts controversial discussions and sometimes we have to pull people out of the mud pit. I'd rather keep them from falling into the mud pit in the first place because nothing "derails" a thread worse than that. I almost never vote to ban a member and I don't even issue warnings very often, so you're in no danger from me. Just try to remember that this is a place of science. If you're going to "tell us what you really think," I would hope that it's about some tidbit of science, not the IQ or personality of another member, and I would hope you would not need to be reminded of that.
