Richard Dawkings says ....

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Here

[ QUOTE ]

This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, how can a man of Dawkins' undoubted intelligence apply a word like "purpose" to inanimate things?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed his point. He says LACKING all purpose, ie purpose is NOT an attribute that can be ascribed to inanimate things

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously trying to accuse him of granting intentionality to inanimate objects


[/ QUOTE ]

No, neither he nor I mentioned intentionality. He said purpose.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see where he specifically talks about inanimate objects in that paragraph,


[/ QUOTE ]

Things? Universe?

[ QUOTE ]

Is quibbling about language like this the best you can do in terms of disagreeing with him?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. Language and definitions are silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe inanimate obects can't have emotions.
I believe that no one can say an inanimate obect is happy.

Hey guys, Trantor says inanimate obects can't have emotions so how can he talk about happiness in relation to inanimate objects?

You see your error?

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I wonder if part of your problem is that you don't realize that standard deviations converge faster than means. Thus chance does bring order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't your first sentence relate to the estimates obtained from sampling a distribution, ie the convergence of the values obtained via sampling to the actual values of the distribution. If so, how does this relate to the development in time of any system and, in particular, with a system developing in time a more ordered state through chance events?

[bearly]

hi, i don't see the problem. the upper quote has the contingency= 'might'. the lower has the contingency='if'. to the first, one can easily say, "i suppose anything might be the case (in this regard)", to the second ,one can say, 'but i'm not sure that is the case'........b