From: Khoo Hock Aun (hockaun@pc.jaring.my)
Date: Sat Aug 21 2004 - 06:56:32 BST
Hi Chris,
Glad to see you on this list. Mike Treders's path crossed mine in another
network and thats how I recognised the CRN in your mail.
While the discussion goes on and on about which aspect of reality is the
one reality, all brought about by the this great need to define things
including, the DQ, which Pirsig in only following the approach of the Tao
in resisting definition, had done the same.
Everything is accommodated, it all depends on how high you lift your
vision and from really really long wave cosmological cycles to
nanotechnology, the incisive penetration of insight tears down the
distinctions that many ordinarily perceive.
As for the question of free will, I would like to think the karmic view is
a complete one; everyone of us is on a trajectory propelled by the
momentum of past deeds and desires; that much has been pre-destined,
ironically, by what we have done, by our own choice. Where we go from
here, in a dynamically changing environment is where we choose to go; and
that choice is determined in the end but what we value.
The fear of an artificial humanity made possible by whatever technology is
a needless one. As I have said oftentimes before; all reality is virtual
anyway.
Best Regards
Khoo Hock Aun
Quoting hampday@earthlink.net:
>
> From Ham Priday
> To: Chris Phoenix, Friday, August 20
> Re: MD Re: Non-empiricist definition of DQ
>
>
> Hi, Chris.
>
> You say you're not really a physicist, but you certainly think like one
> when
> you say ...
>
> > Despite my flirting with physics above, I think I'm talking about a
> > metaphysics, not a physics. And think the deepest questions of free
> will
> > should be answerable by physics.
>
> Why physics? Because your reality is a world governed by physical
> principles. [I peaked at your website and see that you're very much
> into
> nanotechnology -- not one of my favorite sciences, as you now know].
> I
> won't be able to shake you from that world because it is your personal
> mindset. As for myself, although my BS was in Biology/Chemistry, a
> physicist is the last person I'd consult on the question of Free Will.
> I
> have a close friend who happens to be a professor of bio-chemistry and
> sees
> everything in terms of the dynamics of chemicals and genes. From what
> I've
> seen of nanotechnology, you guys want to make molecules behave like
> living
> organisms as a sort of "post-evolution" of Nature -- perhaps even
> create a
> more efficient brain in the process!. To me, that's the epitome of
> logical
> positivism. It's based squarely on the idea that the essence of
> reality is
> in the object.
>
> You asked ...
>
> > Whoa. Where did cause-and-effect determinism come in? And where did
> I
> > promise to explain free will?
>
> You didn't ... I just wanted to see your explanation. The question of
> Free
> Will applies to every philosophy.
>
> Actually, my question was a very simple one that might even have been
> answered by the statement: "I don't believe man has it" I'm surprised
> that
> MOQ followers seem disinterested in the question of Free Will. To
> philosophers outside of this forum it has been a major issue since
> Darwin.
> The idea that everything is theoretically determinable by its
> antecedant
> causes means that man, whether he knows it or not, is not a free
> creature.
> (A good source on the paradox of Freedom is "Free Will" by Laura
> Waddell
> Elkstrom, published in paperback by Westview Press.) I don't know how
> DQ
> gets around this problem; but my solution is to posit finite knowledge
> as
> the outer limit of man's intelligence, which makes him a free agent
> within
> empirical reality.
>
> > Of course, there may be a higher level in which it's possible to
> know
> > exactly what possibilities exist and how evolution will go. So it
> may
> > be that whether we have free will or not depends on which level you
> look
> > from: the human level where we play metaphysics, or some
> hypothetical
> > higher level.
>
> But isn't "metaphysics" supposed to be a philosophy of reality "beyond"
> the
> physical level? Or does Mr. Pirsig have a "special" definition for
> this
> term, too?
>
> > Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that interesting systems
> contain
> > ideas the truth of which is unknowable within that system. A richer
> > system could exist that would be able to evaluate the truth of
> things
> > that the original system can't--but of course would have its own
> > unknowabilities.
>
> Godel would seem to be getting there. But why the need for a higher
> system?
> This is equivalent to arguing for multiple universes. To me, there is
> man's
> reality (finitude) and there is ultimate reality (absoluteness),
> "ultimate"
> meaning the source (and end) of all difference and process.
>
> > I found a paper that seems to confirm this interpretation. "And if
> such
> > is the case, then we (qua mathematicians) are machines that are
> unable
> > to recognize the fact that they are machines.
>
> Chris, do you really believe that man is a "machine"? (That makes you
> a
> mechanist, you know, and only confirms my suspicions about
> nanotechnology's
> objective.)
>
> >As the saying goes: if our
> > brains could figure out how they work they would have been much
> smarter
> > than they are.
>
> I'm sorry, Chris. "Smartness" may be a desirable attribute of the
> brain,
> but it doesn't lead us to philosophical wisdom. Its only function is
> dealing with the complexities of a finite world which is largely of
> man's
> creation.
>
> > You talk about the alternative to free will as being a state of
> knowing
> > everything.
>
> No. You missed the point -- an important one. I'm saying that IF man
> could
> possess complete knowledge (which he obviously cannot) he would not be
> Free.
> This is my attempt to turn Sartre's "dreadful freedom" into a "divine
> gift".
> As stated in my Postscript: It vindicates the inaccessibility of
> Absolute
> Truth as consistent with the principle of Individual Freedom.
>
> I like the way your mind works, Chris; but I'm afraid we're working in
> opposite directions. Appreciate the thoughtful response anyway.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > 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 Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
> [ Scanned by JARING E-Mail Virus Scanner ( http://www.jaring.my ) ]
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 21 2004 - 06:56:52 BST