"Hi Hummer! Where are you from? Intelligent Design? Drug-induced psychosis?" (Representative cross selected operation of a student breakfast cognition ...* Laughs * ... * Cough * ... * Spitting blood *...)
----------...----
Evolution, Mr Alberth is, in Niklas Luhmann (whether it is good or bad, is a question advance of morality, well, if made, even has a moral issue ... therefore better: Stay away from the moral), for example in the Ges Ges treated, Chapter 3
is analytically impossible to save the term, but he surely ought to be in a situation that could differ in one to save or prefer to unwind. The observation that results in systems with a separate, self-reproducing operation way of making the improbable be expected on the structure of education, then we can either say, was that always there (Did Hummer has always been? Was it the science has always been? (Creation / Construction)) or, we observe such a way that we think were certain phenomena for some time, for developed (the education system consists of certain elements (communications), the gain but only in the education system be expected, they have. For example. One observes paper and his handing round some time, and in other contexts, but all at once can be expected with a certain regularity, that paper, imprinted with "evidence" of each year in the summer there. And with what is on the papers (I mean, there are indeed only figures and abstract concepts like "art" on it) very specific connections are likely, namely, admission to the next grade or not. But if you can maintain a loving relationship or not, so first time to do absolutely nothing (what would be sad for youth!) (Kontingenzbildung)).
finds evolution always takes place in the system, there is no equivalent for that which takes place in the system, in the environment. The environment is unobservable - too complex. We observed only Mr Alberth and not all-other (we wash dishes at the sink and do not scratch from the universe).
your term schizophrenia paradox reminds me a lot of problems in systems theory be treated. In fact, the beginning is undecidable, because it presupposes already that someone asks about the beginning and him of something different, what then but just as much a part of the beginning like the beginning itself, it is the unobservable context that mitsch weaves always, but not is observed. The question of the beginning is made Mittenmang and when they re-enter into itself, it can only choose "the beginning is the beginning" (a tautology) or "not the beginning is the beginning" (paradox). And they would overturn their observation of the operation if they would not start by using self-and external reference to develop the operation and say, "This is part of the beginning of it .. and the one to the beginning than to its context / environment / Milleu in which it is located on this, but so far no part of it. But let us not forget that the beginning when he observes himself (as one side of a distinction), a distinction which is then observed difference in itself and therefore processed only oscillations ... this takes time.
is ultimately the system itself is not transparent and the environment for the system and also why some start to say they understand the environment, while they only understand that they can not be understood, nor the environment.
-----...---
"Oh no, now is the lobster made from there. No matter, its environment, no matter where he is, is still there. Then I eat shut ... * Do-not-laugh *...* Knurr stomach * "
0 comments:
Post a Comment