Into the Wardrobe

Robert,

I apologize for this belated reply; duties call. Nevertheless, I believe that we have reached the point, happy and happily, where further agreement cannot be reached by expression or clarification as whatever disagreements are left are a function of our respective philosophies. Nevertheless, I have a few quibbles left to which you may wish to respond.

::Unless of course that external content is making judgements about 'how' that system functions. thsi naturally militates against it being viewed as a closed system.

If the function of a system is an event, then that event can be judged in retrospect by both an internal and an external judge, and it can be comprehended in its course by neither an internal nor external sensor. The Cartesian notion that one must be separated from an object in order to perceive it is a mistake; there are no objects, only events, and everything that is not the event itself is separated from it, if by nothing else, then by time. We cannot think about the process or the "how" of thought because as soon as we proceed to the event of analysis the event of experience has passed.

::But that IS the process. And indeed, you just mentioned the process in your explanation of the process, i.e., how thinking about an apple is not thinking about thinking. So, you have only proved my point. Not to appeal to a sleight of hand philosophical trick, but this is precisely thinking about thinking.

Thought is a conception. We cannot conceive the process of thinking. We cannot discuss what it IS, only what it can and can't DO, that is, we can discuss whether or not certain memories or judgments persist or do not persist in our minds as evidence of what the process of thinking may or may not have DONE.

::Well I will agree that there are many mysteries of God that go beyond our ability to reason out. However, with that said, I am convinced that His general revelation is consistent with even human reason; just as Romans 1:20 explains (the light of creation). So, such an explanation of sin is inadequate.

I did not say beyond our reason, only beyond our definition. We can understand love well enough to wield it, but not enough to create or destroy it. Theodicy is too often the science of creating and destroying God: I know that He is good, I do not know how many pieces of what type get glued together to make a good God.

Adam