Dear At,
I a recent message, you said:
>I am not using irrelevant or intricate concepts so as hide my ignorance
>and inability to aswer the questions which you put to me. I have no time
>for such deplorable tactics.
>
>But I cannot answer you unless I bring "entropy production" and the whole
>web of emergences which it sustains into the picture.
I don't think that anyone is accusing you of the deceptions you mention in
the first paragraph.
Regarding the second paragraph, why can you not answer without discussing
entropy production, etc.? Is that because it is impossible to explain
knowledge accumulation and language barriers without it, or because it is
impossible for you to explain without it? The vital difference being that
the first requires us all to learn physics, math, and your concepts to
understand life, where the second requires us to learn these things to
understand your explanation of life. Certainly, trying to enlighten the
world at large would be very difficult if using the language of physics,
don't you think?
Brian
briangordon@livetolearn.com
Live to Learn
www.livetolearn.com
--"Brian Gordon" <briangordon@livetolearn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>