From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 11:03:57 GMT
Scott,
Who in his right mind has been working on "perpetual motion machines" - that
paints a pejorative "mad professor" charicature of scientists, just as your
"intelligent design" theory paints a "bible thumping conservative"
caricature of others. (I blogged more recently about the intelligent design
creationist debate.)
Scinetist / theologian / philosopher its the same question ... "how could
language come about from a world without language".
Lingustics again
Ian G
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
> Matt,
>
> Matt said:
> Like the idea that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory. I'm not
> sure how Scott feels about it (based on his feelings about Darwinianism),
> but as far as I can see, from what I've read, "intelligent design" isn't
> so
> much a theory whose purpose is to displace evolutionary theory, as an
> attempt to block the road of inquiry (by saying, "nah, nah, evolution
> won't
> explain the things you want it to").
>
> Scott:
> A couple of clarifications. First, "intelligent design" is an evolutionary
> theory, not a displacement. It wants to displace Darwinism, another
> evolutionary theory that holds that no appeal to anything we might call
> mental is needed to explain biological change and the coming into
> existence
> of anything we might call mental (sigh, it's so hard to find a non-SOM
> vocabulary :-). I consider neither intelligent design nor Darwinism to be
> scientific theories. (I also don't particularly like being associated with
> "intelligent design" theorists, but do admit I am closer to them than to
> Darwinists. My objections are that it is usually given as if there were
> one
> Intelligent Designer, aka God, which I disagree with. Further, since I
> consider Intellect to be another name for Buddhist Emptiness, to say there
> is a design according to which bodies are made to evolve is probably
> misleading. That would be an anthropomorphic fallacy. In short,
> intelligent
> design is thought of in SOM terms, and that won't work. Of course, in my
> opinion, Darwinism is also thought of in SOM terms.)
>
> Matt said:
> Pragmatists have very little truck
> with blocking the road of inquiry, we'd rather let inquiries die out on
> there own. People will simply stop doing them when they are found to not
> be
> profitable anymore.
>
> Scott:
> I certainly don't want to tell people what or how to inquire. But from my
> point of view, I see the efforts of cognitive scientists and all to be as
> likely of paying off in any significant way (like telling us how language
> could have come about from a world without language) as is working on
> building a perpetual motion machine. So it is my responsibility to try to
> explain why I think so.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 11:45:13 GMT