[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[David M]

> [Case]
> You obviously have some kind of issue here. What exactly is your 
> complaint?
> Do you actually see hope for a philosophy that denounces or it otherwise
> inconsistent with science? You are complaining because science does not 
> live
> up to your expectations when you expect it to do things it is not even
> supposed to do.

DM: I am only saying science has to be explained by a broader context
of our understanding of experience and has its limits. No more.

>
> [David M]
> Science, pretty much, describes bits of experience, measures it,
> and fits it into formulas that can be used to make very exact
> descriptions. It's great but, I'm afraid, that's not enough and we have
> further questions to ask and try to answer. Natural history is
> not like this and is made rather unrealistically simple when we talk
> about 'fitness' for survival because this tells us little about the great
> variety of ways to survive and do alot more than just survive
> and be fit. I am very unfit for example but survive and do all
> kinds of weird extra stuff.
>
> [Case]
> Fitness is unrealistically simple? My God, man look at the vast array of
> strategies for survival exhibited in nature and you call that simple?

DM: This is my point but you are confusing a simple concept with what it
is inadequately used to explain by some people who don't recognise that
models are always limited. Sure fitness is a useful concept upto a point but 
my God
man it does not explain the great variety of life! All I am saying is there 
is alot
of debate to be had,and no doubt future developments, regarding what we
mean by 'explanation', and I am very skeptical about useful explanations 
putting
themselves forward as 'the last word'.