From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Aug 27 2004 - 02:20:16 BST
msh said:
Maybe a slight disagreement here. It seems to me that people often
create mysteries in order to solve them. The mystery of the
"purpose" of life is the prime example. It seems to me that humans
see (or, more accurately, create) purpose in their own lives and
therefore can't believe that life itself is without purpose. They
solve the "mystery" by positing the existence of God, not seeing that
all they are doing is replacing one mystery with another.
scott:
What about the mystery of consciousness? Unless someone can show me
how one set of electrons and quarks can be aware of another set --
not just flip a switch to indicate a yes or no answer to the
existence of some pattern or other, but to experience the conscious
phenomenon of seeing that pattern in all its four-dimensional glory --
then there is a mystery, as long, that is, as one assumes that
consciousness is derived from the nonconscious.
msh says:
Yes. I agree that life arising from the inorganic layer is a very
big mystery. Even the MOQ fails to answer it to my satisfaction,
though Dan and others have tried to explain it to me. But, as you
seem to agree below, saying "God did it" solves nothing; in fact,
this only serves to further clutter one's ontological closet, IMO.
scott:
The existence of this mystery is not, to be sure, solved by positing
the existence of God (even if one were to say that consciousness is
fundamental, then one still hasn't shown that such an Ultimate is,
say, loving.) But it does show me that Darwinism is hopeless as a
basis for explaining the existence of human beings, and so there is
no reason to accept it as a basis for biological evolution (that is,
that evolution can proceed solely through random mutations and
natural selection.)
msh says:
I think Darwinism works fine (along with the MOQ), once life has
"started" and the evolutionary mechanisms are in play. The activity
of organisms in response to DQ does the rest, I think. I think the
reason folks with theistic inclinations find it unsatisfactory is
that it allows no special place for human beings, above and apart
from other life forms. This just rubs some animals the wrong way.
You know, "Just LOOK at us! How COULD such magnificient creatures
have evolved through random mutation?"
Obviously, Darwinism can't explain how life started in the first
place. But neither does the MOQ, or any brand of Theism. What's
wrong with a little mystery, anyway? We outta thank whatever "gods"
we believe in that we don't know everything. This ignorance allows
us the "blessing" of being able to determine our own values and
purposes, even if such determinations are illusory.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' 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 : Fri Aug 27 2004 - 02:56:42 BST