Let us not forget the more probable possibility that we humans simply
attribute 'goodness' and 'progress' to those things that we seem to have,
more than other species. This satisfies the collective ego. Then we turn
around and assess other species, and - voila!-we turn out to be the superior
ones, by objective proof.
Lest this circular logic seem too obvious for anyone to fall for it, I will
simply point out that in the last several years, I have been asked to be on
Ph.D. committees of students whose theses possessed precisely this logic.
Yes, indeed - our species, and we as individuals within it, have the ability
to select our purposes in life, and these purposes may and should well seem
to us fully convincing. But this does not mean that 'evolution' has a
'purpose'. Evolution can be blind, and yet have given rise to organisms that
can purpose themselves. The attributes of an element in a system need not be
shared with all other elements, nor even characterize the larger system as a
whole.
Cheers,
Lawry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On
Behalf Of RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 11:09 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Creationism.
To: Platt, Jonathan, Maggie, Erin, Squonk, DLT and Sketch
Thanks to Jonathan for the reminder to look back at the 1998 archives. Here
was my take on the Purpose issue back then:
"In the book *The Collapse Of Chaos* by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart the
authors
attempt to deal with this... topic as follows: 'A dynamic does not
necessarily imply a purpose. Darwinian evolution has a dynamic, but
organisms
do not seek to evolve. The existence of attractors does not imply that
dynamical systems are goal-seekers: on the contrary, they are goal-finders,
which only recognize what the 'goal' is when they have found it.' They
[Cohen
and Stewart] then go on to state that it is a tempting fallacy to ' derive a
sense of purpose from a dynamic and see it as a spiritual frame that we must
use.'
Those of us rejecting teleology seem to be able to accept that nature can
have patterns (including dynamic patterns) without necessarily implying a
purpose. For those that don't see the world this way, I suggest Collapse of
Chaos. It may not convince you, but it can certainly clarify why some of us
see that these concepts aren't necessarily linked.
As for Erin's point that in the MOQ "teleological
and causal frameworks" are not "at odds with each other," I disagree. I am
fine with patterns having attractors or being explained via values, but to
equate this to goals and purposes over-explains the issue. (Kind of like my
rejection of consciousness in subatomic particles. Both are just examples
of
anthropomorphising and gross reductionism of the sloppiest manner.)
I agree though with Jonathan that life has a purpose, and that he stated it
well. My version...
"Life's purpose is to survive. However, for life, survival comes not from
just stability, but also from adaptiveness. Life achieves stability and
harmony through change, versatility, and replication."
Finally, I would offer to fill Platt's "explanatory gaps" in a more
productive way than dogma. Turning away from testable hypotheses and
inserting " God wanted it this way" or "it is the universe's purpose" is to
me a rejection of intellectual values all together. It replaces curiosity
and
exploration with untestable absolutes based upon authority. (Was that God,
Allah or DQ's purpose? Was that according to Pirsig's, Platt's or the Pope's
view?)
But I really could be wrong on any of the above...
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:16 BST