Hi Bo, Platt,all
I'm flattered for your call, Bo.
> the creation vs chance disagreement is over how life came to be in the
> first place, not so much evolution.
I just entered to show a possible role of chance in the evolution theory,
and arguing that the MOQ is not really teleological (contrarily to what
Pirsig claims).
> Back in the Devon(?) age when inorganic
> value was the one that bordered on to the dynamic surroundings it spawned
> biological value - THAT is MOQ's "creation" ....afterwards life grew in
> complexity from the new value, that's MOQ's evolution, thus it combines
the
> two.
>
ok, but you have to explain whether you believe that in one or both
phenomena there is an external intelligence, a design, God, or something
like that. Once they had no explanation for flashes and rain, they
invented Zeus. Today it is risible to state that Zeus sends flashes.
Indeed, we have not a decent explanation of when, how and where life popped
out from the inorganic level. And there is God. Well, it is atleast sensible
to state that we have the right to searching for a "scientific" explanation.
A promising line of thoughts is Autopoiesis, indeed.
I think the MOQ would call evolution also the "creation" of a new level.
> Platt refers to life's "exploitation" of inorganic values. Correct, but it
does not
> alter them, carbon is as carbonic in a living organism as in nature. It's
also
> correct that the higher value affects the lower - very obvious in the
> social/biological relationship, but likewise: organisms do their
biological
> things - must do them for social value to have a stable platform. And
> Intellect impacts on society to the degree of creating different cultures,
but
> social value can't be altered. I feel that Platt is seething over this
nit-picking,
> yet his test indicate an effect on inorganic value ITSELF ...as I see it,
but I
> may be wrong.
I think I'm with Rog here, and I think that inter-level relations can be
cooperative. Anyway, matter/life is maybe the best example of a
hardware/software relationship. I don't see how can life "exploit" inorganic
values. It just shapes matter as its support.
I don't know if I answered, really.
Let me add something about the tests on "mind" affecting "matter": you are
right, when I decide to move my hand, this is a clear example of mind moving
matter. We also must remember that no one else can move my hand. There must
be a borderline between what I can move and what I can't.
As Platt states that the scientific community does not want to investigate
the possibility of affecting matter, I must inform you that a very serious
scientific institution in Italy offers one million dollars to anyone can
perform something of "paranormal". I think that showing that:
«the human mind can influence REG machines built to perform a random
electronic toss of the coin so that we can "will" the machine to produce
more heads, say, than tails.»
would win.
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 - 16:06:19 BST