"Ok, and it would be useful to go into this in even more detail because it is more tangible and they contain many interesting ideas. Grade B+"
What's wrong with talking about things that aren't tangible?!
"I didn't say anything it wrong with this and in any case, it depends on your purpose. I just said it would be useful to go into the digital/analog stuff to set a better fix on your ideas about 'continuity' (specifically since you now seem to be saying that it's a 'right brain' notion."
"Have a look at a mathematical treatment of "continuity" on "the continuium", in a math dictionary or encyclopedia (also on the internet) and combine with what you say in this paper."
I think that Philosophy MUST be speculative and abstract- SCIENCE must be tangible.
"Depends on your vew of philosophy. Perhaps, i.e. philosophy should be skeptical and not speculative. In any case, this is also a math/logic class."
(A math/logic class inside the philosophy department!)
Continuity is a property of reality that is tough for our minds to grasp. Describing it with logic only will always fail. Consciousness must advance for "us" (humans) to grasp it... It is more easily grasped with a "right brain" visialization approach than a "left brain" systematic approach.
"This wasn't at all clear in the original version. I didn't realize it was your view until you stated it here. And why do you think that describing continuity with math/logic would always fail? Scientists who think otherwise should give up?"
(Honestly, maybe you should try actually reading the thing you are trying to critique!)
"So are you submitting this as a rewrite? Further response from you is welcome."
You haven't given me enough reason to rewrite this. If I did, I would only add the above statement.
The likely evolutionary path of the human race:
The 21st century needs its own philosophy; here it is: