Platt, all
M:
> > I just wanted to point out that the role of chance (skill, fortune,
> > blessing, luck, Manito, DQ) is not secondary within a serious scientific
> > theory like the evolution theory is. Thus, that the theory is not in
> > contradiction with the MOQ.
P:
> The MOQ sees purpose in the universe. Die-hard Darwinists don't see
> any at all.
1) The MOQ sees an evolution toward better. We can quibble about the meaning
of the term "purpose". IMO if we don't know where are we going to, we have
no purpose but walking. The MOQ is a "here and now" philosophy. No long-term
design . No end. I don't deny the value of short-term design, but what I
learn from Pirsig is "Do it well now. With art. The good result will come."
2) I think that those Darwinists that see no purpose at all don't take their
assumption from Darwin. Jonathan has been clear on it. Running away from the
previous situation is 100% Darwinist. It's a "here and now" purpose. Not a
teleological "I'll go there". It's walking on while looking back at the
past, as the famous Pirsig's quote Erin recently offered tells.
M:
> > The question is: is chance the "window" for a "purposeful DQ" to come in
> > from time to time and lead evolution? IMO no. Not necessarily, I mean.
And
> > according to my Occam's razor, I cut off what's not necessary.
> >
> > IMO when DQ comes in through that window, simply offers us the
possibility
> > and the freedom to change for something else, possibly for something
> > better. In other words, DQ makes room and *then* we fill it with our
> > purposes.
P:
> How did DQ influence anything before "we" came into the picture? Are
> quantum particles purposeful?
The old "awareness of atoms" thread.... no please! :-) Take that "we" as
"we, patterns of value". OK?
M:
> > That's my point. It is absurd to state that universe has no purpose. IMO
it
> > has infinite purposes, often competing. The overall movement toward the
> > undefined better is not a purpose, it is simply natural.
P:
> I think the MOQ agrees with you. But scientists? Darwinians? Most are
> adamant in stating the universe exhibits no purposes whatsoever. We're
> only here by dumb luck.
>
First, I take the razor. No "dumb luck". Simply, luck. It sounds already
better, especially if you consider that luck is one of the names for DQ.
Then, I don't know that "most" state that. It's their problem, not mine.
There are lots of non-atheist Darwinians. And there is Jonathan, and there
is Pirsig.
(by the way, I don't need Darwin to know that I'm here -also- by luck. Think
of the millions of spermatozoa my dad produced, and only one had the
luck -what else?- to generate me. Just another one has been more lucky: my
sister....)
> Your position seems to be "It gets better accidentally on purpose."
> Where have I gone wrong?
I guess you insist too much with "purpose". I can accept the existence of
many short-term competing purposes. There's no need of an overall design.
Ciao,
Marco
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 - 16:06:18 BST