Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 19:28:58 BST

  • Next message: Joe: "MD Re: One more for the road"

    Keep evolution, chuck Darwin, its not science, its a research programme -see
    Popper, and it just is not convincing, although we do need some theory to
    explain evolution,
    but Darwin is the only game in town, but it just does not convince me,
    because random mutation+ selection, what is that ever going to add up to?
    What else, lets get thinking?

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <abahn@comcast.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 2:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

    > Scott,
    >
    > After another morning walk with the dog (it is where I do my best
    thinking--I
    > think), I had another thought.
    >
    > I asked: "How does Sheldrake avoid this cunumdrum?"
    >
    > You answered: "That I don't know, but from what I've understood he doesn't
    need
    > to explain consciousness. Only materialists do, or the whole Darwinist
    world
    > view falls apart."
    >
    > Andy: Well, as I admitted before, I am still unsure how you are using
    this term
    > materialist. Two points thoughgh, first: Sheldrake, as I remember (it has
    been
    > a long time), uses his perceptions and experience to explain some things
    that he
    > thought Darwinian theory did a poor job answering. Thus, he proposed
    these
    > fields specific to each specie that they can tap into. However,
    subsequent
    > theorists showed that Darwinian theory answered Sheldrake's examples just
    fine.
    > Now, I am not up to date on Sheldrake and I am sure I got some of this
    wrong,
    > but the point is he was using the products of his perception to analyze
    his
    > perceptions. ANd he proposed a theory. He was using a scientific
    methodology .
    >
    > Second, Darwinian theory does not try and explain consciousness. This is
    your
    > pet project. Now if you are going to use explaining consciousness as your
    > criteria for "right" theories, than you are going to have to throw a lot
    more
    > out than Darwin. Newtonian physics, SHeldrake, Einstien's relativity,
    Quantum
    > physics, and all of science as we know it. Darwinian theory explains many
    > things and cosciousness is not one of them. It explains the vast
    diversity of
    > life and quite well also. However, it does a litttle "bootstrapping" of
    its own
    > by starting with simple single cell organisms, our common anscestors.
    Darwin
    > theory has nothing to say about how consciousness develops out of the
    inorganic.
    > It doesn't even try. So your attempt at throwing out "the whole
    Darwinist
    > world view" just doesn't make any sense. At least for the reasons you
    give.
    >
    > Thanks again,
    > Andy
    > > Andy,
    > >
    > > (I know, you asked David, but I can't resist)
    > >
    > >
    > > > Hi David,
    > > >
    > > > Since I am having such a difficult time understanding Scott, could you
    > > please
    > > > explain to me how something as obscure as "trying to explain
    perception
    > > through
    > > > the products of perception" can throw any favorable light on the work
    of
    > > > SHeldrake over the other conventional "materialist" explanations? If
    we
    > > are not
    > > > allowed to explain experience through what we experience, then what
    are we
    > > left
    > > > with?
    > >
    > > Nothing. Mu. Consciousness is self-contradictory, so the only logic for
    > > talking about consciousness is the logic of contradictory identity. So
    the
    > > more sensible thing is to assume consciousness as a given, and not
    something
    > > that could have evolved out of non-conscious processes. This is, of
    course,
    > > the same move that Pirsig made with Quality.
    > >
    > > > How does Sheldrake avoid this cunumdrum?
    > >
    > > That I don't know, but from what I've understood he doesn't need to
    explain
    > > consciousness. Only materialists do, or the whole Darwinist world view
    falls
    > > apart.
    > >
    > > - 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
    >
    >

    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 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 19:57:51 BST