From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Fri Dec 02 2005 - 16:12:58 GMT
> [Case]
> First of all bird can not defy gravity.
[Platt]
Oh but they do, every time they fly.
[Case]
They use the laws of nature to remain airborn. If you mean defy in the sense
of thumbing their beaks, wait no thumbs, whatever, then yes but they are not
violating the laws of nature.
[Platt}
Rocks don't worry. I don't know if birds worry or not, but they are not at
the mercy of the forces you mention any more than we are. Otherwise, neither
birds nor we would be able to survive for a minute.
[Case]
You seem to have a real need to feel yourself and your idealized
"individual" as powerful autonomous masters of fate. I suspect no amount of
evidence will disabuse you of this.
> [Case]
> Why? Aren't computers part of nature? Isn't what we have learned about
> nature incorporated in their design? They have proved very useful in
> modeling natural phenomena like hurricanes and they have greatly
> extended our ability to investigate complexity itself.
[Platt]
Computers are neat, but they are no more part of nature than the chair on
which I sit, unless you mean by "nature" all that exists. Man-made artifacts
are not "natural" in my vocabulary.
[Case]
That is like saying anthills aren't natural because ants make them. Need I
mention bird and incest nests, beaver dams, prairie dog and rabbit warrens
and on and on? Setting man apart from nature is a very low Quality way of
looking at things. But this does seem to be your position. You seem to hold
that not only is one man an island but mankind is its own island. You
obviously hold this belief very deeply and in defiance of all logic and
evidence to the contrary. I doubt there is anything anyone could say to
change your mind. But this is not a belief rooted in reason. It seems like
more like faith. It might at least be therapeutic for you to acknowledge
where reason ends and faith begins.
> [Case]
> So you are subscribing to a kind of marketplace of ideas approach
> where the measure of truth is popularity?
[Platt]
No. I don't subscribe to truth by taking polls.
[Case]
What standard would you apply?
>[Case]
> And BTW, since societies determine what will be defined as crime it is
> hard to see how they can escape responsibilities for it's occurrence.
[Platt]
So if I set a standard of behavior for my son and he violates it, I'm to
blame? Sounds wacky to me. But, in this age when everyone wants to be a
victim and blame someone else for his troubles, I'm not surprised.
[Case]
If you set standards of behavior and your son continually violates those
standards yes you are most certainly to blame. This would demonstrate that
either your standard is unreasonable or your ability to enforce the standard
is inadequate. Setting unenforceable standards is both flawed and corrosive
to respect for any standards that you set. This applies to social
institutions as well.
Your contempt for victims of any sort is really sad.
> [Case]
> Ok but defining a term with more undefined terms is not helping me to
> understand what you mean. What is "betterness"? What is "Excellence"?
> You seem to imply that purpose, betterness and excellence are
> fundamental properties of nature. If that is true I would think you
> could at least say what they are and what they do.
[Platt]
If you don't know what betterness and excellence is, I can't tell you,
anymore than I can tell you what Beauty is.
[Case]
It is strange then that you would elevate something you can not even
describe metaphorically to the status of an eternal principle. You seem to
be saying that all of reality is brought into being and guided by a warm
fuzzy feeling.
> [Platt]
> What caused life to emerge from pond scum, what caused mind to emerge
> from frogs?
> [Case]
> The law of nature to the extent that we have uncovered them provide
> excellent explanations for this. Beyond that, are you a parent? The
> emergence of life from scum is directly observable in the reproductive
> process. It occurs in a variety of ways from single cells dividing to
> sexual reproduction. This is a wondrous process but not metaphysically
> intractable.
[Platt]
Wondrous it is, but you didn't answer the questions.
[Case]
Self sustaining reactions occur regularly in nature. Fire, storms, solitron
waves, persistent ocean currents are all examples. They depend on a constant
inflow of energy and a receptive configuration of matter. These condition
exist here. Wherever conditions exist for complex interactions to occur, the
potential for self sustaining reactions also occurs. We see here on Earth a
great variety of places and forms where life takes hold.
As I tried to point out in the example above, life emerges from the
interaction of matter and energy every time an seed sprouts or a newborn
emerges from the womb. In addition ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny so that
every individual retraces the steps of its ancestors. We all have gills at
some point in the womb.
The process is there for all to see and make of it what they will. But there
is none so blind as he who will not see.
> [Case]
> Ok one more time with feeling: the cause (and after all we only have
> to worry about the first one) was the Big Bang and there was no reason.
[Platt]
You attribute a cause to everything except the Big Bang which occurred
without cause. Now that's what I call a cop out.
[Case]
I am saying that, at the moment, the "cause" of the Big Bang is not known.
This gives theoretical physicists something to do. I for one am content to
let them work out the details rather than spinning fantasies. I admit that
this is a leap of faith and have said so repeatedly. But this leap is a
short hop over a mud puddle compared to constructing elaborate scenarios
that involve concepts like eternal consciousness, purpose, beauty and
whatever else is on your list of things that you can not define, describe or
point to.
> [Case]
> The right balance occurs because the wrong balance is not balance at
> all and disappears. My answer is really more like, "Whoa, Dude that is
cool!
> Funny how that works. I wonder what else it does."
[Platt]
"Dude, that's cool" is a longer way of saying, "Oops."
[Case]
Actually it expresses a whole different attitude toward the unknown,
curiosity as opposed to embarrassment.
[Platt]
My answer is, "There's a reason for everything, including things that are
beyond reason."
[Case]
It is hard for me to decide whether this is faith or tautology. Certainly
after the fact, reasons can be applied to whatever happens. Events
significant enough to warrant attention receive interpretation. History is
written by winners. But if you are looking for reasons beyond or outside of
the law of nature; whatever you find, you are welcome to.
> [Platt]
> I give up. Do you have the answers?
>
> [Case]
> Not me but thanks for asking. On the other hand computer simulations
> and math resulting from increased computational power suggest that
> enormous complexity does result from the application of very simple sets
of rules.
> Not only that but this complexity is self sustaining.
[Platt]
So, what's your point?
[Case]
I am saying that the complexity of life results from simple processes. This
fact has only recently be recognised and has yet to be appreciated.
> [Platt]
> When brain scans can tell what someone is thinking, let me know.
>
> [Case]
> These scan have not been around for very long but they do reveal a
> great deal about what people are thinking and feeling; emotional and
physically.
> So unless you want to do a bit a surfing on your own for that I will
> try to keep you posted.
[Platt]
Please do.
[Case]
http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_schizotypes.htm
http://www.ncrg.org/events/What_Genetics_and_brain_scans_are_telling_us.cfm
http://www.e-provider.org/04Sept_NPRdepression.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051129182022.htm
> > [Case]
> > So a hog finds beauty in the smell of a sow's girly parts, would you
> > say this then is intrically beautiful?
> [Platt]
> To a hog, you bet.
>
> [Case]
> This seem like beauty residing in the eye of the beholder rather than
> beauty being an property of the beheld. Are we agreeing here? I think
> you just made my point for me.
[Platt]
Yes, like Quality, beauty is in the eye of beholders to the extent that
beholders are different and have different life experiences. But also like
Quality, Beauty transcends the eyes of beholders as well as objects beheld.
Beauty is beyond description.
[Case]
If hogs find sow vaginas beautiful and I find them disgusting, it can be
said that sow vaginas have some property that lends itself to a variety of
interpretations. Beauty and disgust have nothing whatever to do with the sow
vaginas they have to do with hogs and men. Even as you describe it beauty is
a purely subjective phenomena.
> > > [Case]
> > > And the mushiest of all if supernatural. I have no idea what that
> > > term is supposed to mean.
> > [Platt]
> > It means not attributable to a material (physical) cause.
> [Case]
> Is there at least a material effect? How would one know to ascribe
> this mysterious agency to anything?
[Platt]
If by "material effect" you mean data processed by a bulb of nerve tissue we
call a brain, then yes. "Supernatural" aptly describes your idea of the Big
Bang occuring for no reason. But, I guess you prefer, "Oops" of "Cool,
Dude."
[Case]
Saying that one does not know something is merely an admission of ignorance.
Saying that one does not know something or can not know something, therefore
it must have been this or that, is a demonstration of stupidity.
> [Case Repeats in desperation}
> In short these definitions you have offered are not very clear or very
> helpful.
>
> [Platt]
> Sorry about that. If you want to believe reality is one big crap
> shoot, that's fine by me. But my experience tells me otherwise.
> [Case] Oddly
> enough everything in my experience suggests it is a big crap shoot.
> The world I see is organic, fluid and mysterious. It is fundamentally
> indefinable but experienced intimately. It is wondrous and terrifying.
> I recommend the book of Ecclesiastes.
[Platt]
Are you suggesting God plays dice? Einstein didn't think so.
[Case]
I didn't think I was being evasive in the least on this point but for the
record: "Yes, of course, I believe God is playing dice with the Universe!"
If you won't take me up on Ecclesiates, try this one from the prophet:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith
the LORD." - Isaiah 55:8
Even the Lord of Hosts distains anthropomorphism.
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 Dec 02 2005 - 17:20:33 GMT