From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 02 2005 - 23:55:52 GMT
Hi people,
I've got to be brief but, here goes.
>[Case]
>Biological organisms are no less at the mercy of external forces than
>rocks.
Platt: Disagree. Rocks cannot defy gravity. Birds can.
Poot: False. Birds do not defy gravity. Birds use their wings, to propel
themselves with the aid of the atmosphere, and factors such as lift, wind
currents, etc. If a bird defied gravity, they wouldn't need wings.
--------------
Case: In this place and at this time the forces of nature are in the
right balance to allow enormous complexity. The world we live in is special
that way. If it weren't we wouldn't be here.
Platt: Yes. Makes you wonder how just the right balance occurred. Your
answer is
"Oops."
Poot: As to whether cases answer is "oops", I cannot say. I will post a
more detailed response later, but it is very close with what your saying.
Over time, things have gradually evolved to such a diverse and complex web,
and all members (humans, rocks, air, trees, birds, etc) are inter-related to
the point of dependence (although many do not realise the full extent of
this).
gotta run.....damnit
poot
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org, owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Subject: RE: FW: RE: MD Calling all atheists
>Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:44:19 -0500
>
>
> > [Case]
> > Biological organisms are no less at the mercy of external forces than
> > rocks.
>
>Disagree. Rocks cannot defy gravity. Birds can.
>
> > We just have the ability to hedge our bets. What Pirsig is saying in
> > that section is that once you have distilled things down to a certain
>level
> > you can equate preferance with causality. You seem to want to distill it
> > down then blow it back up as if nothing happened. In other words to
> > reinstate all of the problems that the distillation process removed. I
>am
> > comfortable talking about computers thinking; in diagnosing problems, it
> > may even help. They even have a purpose. It is a purpose we assign to
>them
> > and factor into their evolution and growth. But the purpose comes from
>us
> > as the creator of the computer. Is this the kind of purpose you wish to
> > interject into nature?
>
>I don't compare nature to a computer. Never have, never will.
>
> > [Platt]
> > To quote Pirsig: 'Neither is there a quarrel between the Metaphysics of
> > Quality and the 'teleological' theories which insist that life has some
> > purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite these opposed
> > doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both
>of
> > them without contradiction." (Lila, 11)
> >
> > [Case]
> > This seems to imply that any old theory is OK within the MoQ. Rather
>like
> > having an open mind lets any old thing wander in. Any idea has some
>Quality
> > so lets run with it?
>
>Evolution was the context of Pirsig's statement. So there's no implication
>that "any old theory is OK," like the liberal's theory that society is to
>blame for crime.
>
> > [Platt]
> > Sorry, I can't help you get rid of the bees. Your theory is not unique,
> > however. Others have postulated that the present moment is a devolution
> > from a much more expansive reality.
> >
> > [Case]
> > I am not postulating devolution at all I am saying that the present is
> > where probabilities are resolved.
>
>OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding..
>
> > [Platt]
> > Definition of purpose: the ability plus the inclination to choose
> > betterness.
> >
> > [Case]
> > You are willing to grant this to all of nature as a fundemental
>property?
>
>Yes.
>
> > Betterness for who? Inclination, what is that? If you think that nature
>has
> > this is 'purpose' what is it? What was it's purpose in sitting around
>for
> > 13 billion years until we got here. All of a sudden in the last seconds
>of
> > this act in the play we show up and finally nature has something really
> > important to do since 'betterness' has arrived? Are we there yet? Are we
> > there yet?
>
>The purpose is to continually get better. The goal is excellence. Whether
>we ever get there is undecided at this time.
>
> > [Platt]
> > Like Arlo, you apparently like to attribute novelty to things magically
> > "emerging" from some previous state without cause. Oops, suddenly there
>was
> > purpose.
> >
> > [Case]
> > So far as I can recall the only emergence like this was the first
>umpteen
> > billionth of a second before or after the big bang. After that point
> > everything emerged, including the unbroken chain of causality leading up
>to
> > this moment.
>
>What caused life to emerge from pond scum, what caused mind to emerge from
>frogs?
>
> > Light and gravity and all the other forces emerged in that
> > instant.
>
>By what cause? For what reason?
>
> > In this place and at this time the forces of nature are in the
> > right balance to allow enormous complexity. The world we live in is
>special
> > that way. If it weren't we wouldn't be here.
>
>Yes. Makes you wonder how just the right balance occurred. Your answer is
>"Oops."
>
> > Are these conditions unique?
> > Could they be replicated elsewhere? How much variabilty can there be and
> > still have high level self sustaining interactions occuring?
>
>I give up. Do you have the answers?
>
> > [Platt]
> > Again, a magical emergence of something from 'biochemical
>interactions,."
> > like emergence of consciousness from firing neurons. "Oops" isn't much
>of
> > an explanation. Might as well just say, "It's a miracle."
> >
> > [Case]
> > Seems like a great explaination to me. It allows use to seen how our
> > thought processes work and how they can be improved upon through the use
>of
> > medical technology. We can look at the different structures of the brain
> > and seem how they influence emotions and higher order thought processes.
> > Saying that it is a miracle just leaves you sitting around hoping for
> > another miricle.
>
>When brain scans can tell what someone is thinking, let me know.
>
> > [Platt]
> > Because beauty is transcendent it's not surprising to find it in a
> > peacock's lust as well as a physicist's equations. If it's in the eye of
> > the beholder, what's the eye in? The body. What's the body in? The
>world.
> > What's the world in? The eye of the beholder. And around and around we
>go.
> >
> > [Case]
> > So a hog finds beauty in the smell of a sow's girly parts, would you say
> > this then is intrically beautiful?
>
>To a hog, you bet.
>
> > If this is all about the merry-go-round of existance I am not seeing how
> > your notion of beauty helps us find the brass ring. Solipsism resolves
>your
> > circularity for you. You, Platt, are all that is. You are making this
>whole
> > thing up to amuse yourself in the boredom of infinity. It is all
> > subjectivity.
>
>If you say so.
>
> > > [Case]
> > > But again if you could spell out what you mean by purpose that would
> > > help. Usually people get purpose all mucked up with intentionality,
> > > consciousness, divine purpose and other mushy terms that cause lots of
> > > problems because they are so hard to pin down.
> > >
> > > 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]
> > If something is sufficiently powerful as to be a cause and yet not
> > sufficiently tangable to be detectable, I find it hard to see how useful
>it
> > is. Further more if this acausal agency is not governed by any of the
>laws
> > that govern everything else, who is to say what it is. You seem to want
>to
> > throw out all of the explainations we have for how things work and
>replace
> > them with fuzzy notions of supernatural purpose, about which we know
> > nothing and can demonstrate nothing tangible.
> >
> > Personally I find the notion of supernatural purpose, about which
>nothing
> > can be known or detected, to be no less disturbing that to say it is all
> > chance. At least with chance you don't have people standing up and
>saying
> > they know what the purpose is or that they have received knowledge about
> > this special purpose from supernatural sources and we should do what
>they
> > say.
> >
> > In short these definitions you have offered are not very clear or very
> > helpful.
>
>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.
>
>Platt
>
>
>
>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 : Sat Dec 03 2005 - 02:15:59 GMT