misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory

Acts 5:28 "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

I love your wit Arach... in spite of any differences.It is reported also, that when Michaelangelo wanted to paint nudes his teacher asked 'why'?Michaelangelo said, 'Because I want to see man, as God sees man'.His teacher replied, 'Don't ever forget, that you are not God.'

quote:

---

I have the feeling that we are not in agreement PaulK...

---

Oh I think we are in agreement. We both know that you are fabricating claims in order to deal with the simple fact that you were wrong.

quote:

---

Did you study 'directly' under the authority of Michel Foucault, or did you just jump on the bandwagon because it seemed convenient?

---

I'm not on that bandwagon. And you've got no reason to think I am.

quote:

---

You do not know what it is you say (or do you?). Either way... I do:

---

Oh, so you know that you're twisting and writhing, trying to desperately escape from the truth ? You know that you are resorting to evasions and fabrications.

quote:

---

So just go on and deny... I have made my case. You're free to undo it, but at the expense of common sense and reason. if you don't relax you'll undo yourself

---

You mean at the expense of using common sense and reason. Common sense and reason says that if we want to know if two words mean the same thing we should look them up in a dictionary. You say that we shouldn't do that - if it would prove you wrong.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Hi Rob,This is rule one from the Forum Guidelines:

1. Follow all moderator requests.

And this is our exchange: It's interesting, though irrelevant, that you feel God is telling you to derail threads by introducing sermonettes into the middle of discussions. When you disagree with a mechanic about what's wrong with your truck, do you start quoting scripture? And you'd think even God would be cognizant of simple courtesy and not tell you to behave so rudely.But anyway, can I assume we won't see any more of this in this thread?All the usual advice about not replying here applies, by the way. Take any issues to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Does meaning change or words?Actually, it was Kuresu who tried to deny the meanings based upon etymology.Now I have someone saying that the entymology cannot do so and doesn't.Word usage changes Paul, but that does not change meaning. It is the 'meaning and concepts' that remain the same. And when they diverge, we cannot ignore their roots. We only use different words. And they are often not that different. They only morph slightly. And the words accurately convey the concepts. Do you deny this?And different aspects of the same root such as contemplating or viewing the divine, and contemplation 'in general' are clearly relatives.I'll agree with you that the modern definitions are distinct and different between theory and theology..The thread was poorly written I confess. I should have said they are the same disciplines. The disciplines proceeded from the same assumption; that the universe is ordered in an intelligeable way. They differ on how we can see reality (or past of reailty) by using a different method of theo.I should not have said they have the same meaning in the OP. Sorry for any confusion.

This is the root of the issue then, Rob. You are looking for the etymological acceptability of your argument as ground-work for a much larger claim.Scratch the admin mode for now, I want to ask you a question or two.Here is one question:If the disciplines both began with the same assumptions, so what?Is it not simply human fallibility to assume that God is knowable, or that reality is knowable? Is this not just a human trait, to look for answers with the notion that they may be found? I did not think it was a top-secret that theologians study God, and scientists study the universe, with the same belief that they might find useful answers. Edited by Adminastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Does meaning change or words?

---

Both, of course. A word may change (e.g. the spelling) and it's meaning may also change - as I have shown. As I said before try looking at Chaucer in the original language. It's English but not as we know it.

quote:

---

Actually, it was Kuresu who tried to deny the meanings based upon etymology.

---

I very much doubt that. As I remember it the etymology was introdcued to refute your claim that the fact that "theory" started with the letters t-h-e-o meant that it had something to do with God. Which it did sucessfully.

quote:

---

Word usage changes Paul, but that does not change meaning. It is the 'meaning and concepts' that remain the same. And when they diverge, we cannot ignore their roots. We only use different words. And they are often not that different. They only morph slightly. And the words accurately convey the concepts. Do you deny this?

---

Your first sentence contradicts itself. The usage of a word is the meaning it is used to convey. The roots of the owrd may give some little insight or suggest artistic use, but actual usage trumps it quite thoroughly. Indeed I not only say that words can significantly change in meaning, I produced an example which has occurred in lviing memory. [quote] I'll agree with you that the modern definitions are distinct and different between theory and theology..The thread was poorly written I confess. I should have said they are the same disciplines. [b]The disciplines proceeded from the same assumption; that the universe is ordered in an intelligeable way.[`b] They differ on how we can see reality (or past of reailty) by using a different method of theo. [/quote]I have to disagree with this, too. Theology does not seem to have started with such an assumption. I don't beleive that "theoretics" is a widely recognised discipline if it is one at all. And if it is - as I have said - it is abstract and is not based on the features of our universe at all.

Hi Rob,You might find the A Way With Words podcasts interesting. In response to listener call-ins they explain the origin and evolution of word usage and meanings. These podcasts are a lot of fun.--Percy

Well it did not, since reality (some portion of which all theories attempt to address) is indistinguishable from God.Reality is God. Perhaps not the God of the Bible. But in the sense of the sovereign aspects of reality with or without our approval.For example, gravity is God when I am hanging on by a tree root from a cliff.

Anastasia:So... then we must make an inference to the most logical explanation. That is science.Let's remember that this site is specifically about intelligent design vs. evolution.In any specific case, how is one theory chosen over another?
The answer is... that one of them best explains the evidence. It is the most coherent and logical (which is the root and entire authority of science).Such is the case with 'design inference
.I'll respond to your other questions later... Busy here...

Unfortunately Rob, the evidence suggests that the design we see in living things it exactly the kind of "design" that we know is {inot[/i] intelligent. You have never discussed this even though it has been pointed out to you a number of times.The evidence that we have tells us that biological things are not intelligently "designed". When you say that evidence is best explained you have to explain all of the evidence and not ignore some.Good designs have a number of characteristics. These are present in human produced designs of the most simple kind and the most complex. We make jokes about Rube Goldberg designs because they do not exhibit this characteristics. Living things exhibit exactly the characteristics produced by evolutionary algorithms.

quote:

---

Well it did not, since reality (some portion of which all theories attempt to address) is indistinguishable from God.

​

Reality is God. Perhaps not the God of the Bible. But in the sense of the sovereign aspects of reality with or without our approval.

​

For example, gravity is God when I am hanging on by a tree root from a cliff.

---

So you ARE a pantheist.I have to wonder though at the nature of your faith - since you are prepared to suddenly change your theology in a quite significant way simply to try to avoid losing an argument. It sheds a new light on your preaching and your justifications of preaching, too. Perhaps they, too are mere tactical moves, lacking in true sincerity.Unfortunately for you it's not enough for YOU to be a pantheist. What you would need to do is to show that the people who coined the word were pantheists. And that they invoked the concept of observation with pantheism in view.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't completely agree.Even if I do share some of your beliefs, the coherent picture you paint is no more 'real' or objectively logical that a poem may be. The job of a preacher or a poet is to make connections, paint mental pictures, and inspire. I may say they are the same discipline...aimed at reaching the soul of man through subjective sensorial allegory. They 'prove' to the listener only so much as he or she already believes, and do not rely ultimately on logic, but on the illusion of coherence.Design inference is not necessarily more 'real' or logical than the moon being made of green cheese. When we are presented with new information to consider, the most logical common sense answer may no longer be valid.

Common sense is not necessarily logical. Common sense is often tantamount to concensus. Logic and coherence are [sometimes] illusory; but they are an excellent clue...I'll be dealing with Nosey's classic defense against design shortly. I actually spent an hour this morning writing it, and my 14 month old daughter turned off my computer .And such is the dilemma of the evolutionist. When presented with a more coherent explanation, they have to let go of the conventional view. The change wasn't that hard to make for me. But it required a lot of thought. And I didn't have any fundamental and absolute moral priorities which I was not willing to negotiate in exchange for reality.The problem with many is... in accepting a designer of the Biblical variety, they would have to go through some internal moral conflict, and one of their biggest claims to existential peace is 'no hang ups man'.A preacher or poet cannot reach anyone, if they choose not to be reached.Edited by Rob, : Scratch 'never' insert [sometimes] as per Ringo

Nosy:Good designs? What is good?I thought evolution was about change... not good and bad?Some of your comrades would be very dissappointed in you...As for the last sentance... it's classic. I remember my best friend telling me about such studies.Let me ask you some questions:1. Do the algorithms violate the law and order of the computer system?2. Do they have a choice to do so?3. Are you saying that 'good' (an interesting word etymologically btw...) design is symmetrical and perfectly orderly?4. Does the fact that human beings designed the computer have any bearing on the illustration?You know Ned, the quantum realm reveals some things about our universe. In particular, that the foundational order is either irrational or so super-rational that we cannot fathom it as yet. We really cannot say one way or the other. We have to have faith on either side. I have to think that 'God doesn't play dice', but I cannot prove it to you.If life were perfect, I think it would be perfectly symmetrical and a self sustaining system of some kind. A perpetual reality of order and harmony. Is that what you mean?I don't think imagining a cube or other geometric shape would really be beneficial other than to hint at such a conception. Something with much more than one dimension, but without conflict within the diversity. It would truely be 'University'.That would indeed be good (etymology) and intelligent.And if that is in fact what we mean when we say 'good design', then I agree. Isn't it noteworthy that this claim is exactly what has been made by a cetain man who's name I dare not mention in this temple? It is irrelevant right?So life (as we see it) resembles an algorithm in a computer... fascinating!Perhaps it would be helpful then, for us to think of our universe as a computer, and you and I as digital codes. Yes, I like that very much! Do you?I think that to really understand this issue, we must consider the issue of 'artificial intelligence'. We have already created such life.Are you aware of that?Our computers are 'perfectly robotic life forms', as cognizant as a bacteria, though not nearly as efficient at prosessing information. They are not living. And that is precisely what 'artificial intelligence' is; non-living, programmed robots simulating real life.Perfection has it's limits Ned. It's neat and pretty... but dead! Like a snowflake. Psalm 119:96 To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless. Life is of a higher order that is beyond us. You're not witnessing less intelligence, but more, when you see the order in life forms.What level of complexity and risk of error must be introduced to bring such concepts to life?We would have to be very secure creators to actually allow our creations to think for themselves at the risk of destroying the whole system. But our algorithms are nice little puppets that we can control huh?Again... I do very much like your illustration. I cannot thank you enough for your contribution.And since you brought it up, I am more than happy to discuss it. But if you want to, you can put on your ADmin hat and label all of this off-topic.You can put me in prison, or exclude me from certain temple courts where I mihgt overturn your tables, but I will never be your puppet.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.