Peter, by now we can perhaps talk in a manner which befits friends. And that is, our conversation. Includes certain things we may have learned from ea h other. At one point in time when we were both going to Europe , we exchanged some items relating to our families , that of our relationship ships with our respective daughters, the substance of which escapes me, thank god perhaps because my recent memory has always been very deficient in terms of instant recall.
At any rate , the reason for this mention , is that I recall principles and not particulars, and as it happens to relate to our particular discussion here.
So it struck me , that the question. of recall may effectively block existential and teleological problems, in particular the recall of fetuses and ordinary experienced people , here in this context.
The big issue here, has to do with inherited and experienced types of mindsets, and this puts am entirely different spin on our conversation .
How can we assert without doubt that the genetic inheritance does not include large general neuron pathways, which pre form functions have to do with major decisions in later life, whether and irrespective to the stage of a human finds, or, is found to be determinate in his later development?
Must the standard of Darwinian supposition preclude the mind as opposed to the brain function?
Darwin was shown to have undermined a very credible showing,neural adaptation as the primal function of.coding , as opposed to biological natural selection? : causing that particular Viennese biologist’s suicide.
These last.two paragraphs , omit as You wish, they may be out of.the general context of discussion.
So, what the fetus possesses in scripted neural pathways is not to say what the fetus ‘knows’ . but what he may come to know, if it is allowed to develop. If knowledge is qualified by what is signified as.conscious knowledge, then the objection has been properly summed into acceptable definition
Until then, we really do not know, even the minimum issue worth examining. that pertains to minimal understanding of a newborn child. There is no way as of yet to techno-interfere with living fetuses, although along the way,medical ethics objectively may overcome even that threshold.
I’m glad You brought in Trumpism, for.there’s no way any one could guess the high degree of a higher sense of public acceptance to his ideas: easily showing a new higher collusion between the general public with Congress and the Judiciary.
A year ago , this could not be even imaginable
The point taken fits Lambigous’ higher subjective notions, based on guesses that limits of tolerance to understanding may entail
These issues interface, and why not? They are philosophy, one’s perception perches on the high ground, another’s in the low, teleological AND/OR QM ( it primaryl logic)
A sensible middle has not yet developed, although by the same token, they have perhaps been already neuro scripted.
I want to answer Your next blog but since my blog and and Yours came through almost a.split minute apart, I’d rather edit my version rather than set up a faulty implication.
The Authority is suspect, because it can be scripted genetically, in many cases, and cannot be altered even with the aid of whatever: psychoanalysis, past life regression, or levels of experiencial gain of knowledge. It is not an either or logical acquisition, but an undifferentiated primal script, which can go either way.