From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 02:39:18 GMT
Steve,
I do agree with you that science does not give any hint as to what should be
valued. Some people value X and others value Y. And they will argue all day
that their position is right and the other is wrong and never come to a
conclusion. Science is of no aid.
And so where are we? We can choose to place the pursuit of money as a goal
or we can pursue thrills or dedicate ourselves to the service of others or
be hedonists. Science does not have an opinion on these choices.
And so we are left to choose whatever comes into our head. Is there a
standard by which we can decide what path to go for? Does ZMM give a hint or
clue on this matter? If it did, I missed it.
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: MD life is an emergent property
> Hi Nathan,
>
> > I play the market and have something called LEVEL II service. At times I
sit
> > in awe watching as the information I am getting from the screen updates
> > itself. I can't believe that all of this is "just" or "merely" a series
of
> > on and off switches. Or to give another example, I have trouble
> > comprehending that a film that I can have an emotional reaction to,
> > essentially is made of light and dark pixels that are put together in an
> > organized fashion to create an image on a flat surface.
> >
> > Or a novel is made of letter of the alphabet organized into sentences
which
> > are organized into paragraphs which in turn are organized into chapters.
At
> > the end, the whole is much better and richer than the sum of the parts.
> > Letters can't make me feel angry or induce tears to come to my eyes. Or
can
> > they?
> >
> > But the novel is an illusion, as is movies, as is the information on the
> > price of the stocks I follow. Our brain takes in the information from a
book
> > or a theatre screen or a computer screen and makes sense out of it
because
> > it is hard wired to do so.
>
> Why say that they are illusions? I think you were right when you said
that
> the "whole is much better and richer than the sum of its parts." A living
> being for example is made of atoms just like rocks are but a living being
> is qualitatively different from atoms or rocks.
>
> > Does this conflict with your view of how things work in the universe?
That
> > is, how do you feel about the fact that the human brain gives meaning to
> > information?
>
> You suggest that the objective view shows us that all our loves and hates
> and joys and sorrows are illusions, and meanings and purposes are
illusions
> as well. I suggest that the objective view's failure to explain these
> aspects of experience is a problem with the objective view. The
scientific
> lens will never show you values, since science values value-free inquiry.
> The problem isn't that values are illusions, it's that the lens of science
> filters them out.
>
> Remember that you are choosing this objective view over other possible
ways
> of thinking about your experience. You've made a value judgment in
choosing
> this objective view. You'd then have to conclude that there is no reason
to
> look at the world objectively either since the value of doing so isn't
> objective.
>
> You say our brains are hard-wired to make sense of information, but why
make
> sense out of information? You say you subscribe to Darwin's natural
> selection or survival of the fittest, but why survive? Here SOM science
> gets stuck, because we can't avoid talk of values. In a value-free
> understanding of the universe these questions can't be answered, but with
a
> "principle of betterness" things falls into place. Why make sense?
Because
> some explanations are better than others. Why survive? Because life is
> better than death.
>
> Objective science's goal of denying values is self-defeating. You can't
> argue that viewing the world in terms of material objects and causes and
> effects is worth doing without making a value judgment. I'm not knocking
> objective science. It's a great tool applied to the right kind of job,
but
> the value-free scientific lens simply can't give you the whole picture.
On
> the other hand, while a value-based Metaphysics of Quality includes values
> while it also contains the results of science as high or low quality
> explanations based on a high quality method of inquiry.
>
> ZAMM doesn't suggest that we should deny the results of science. You can
> continue to enjoy NOVA. But we should consider scientific theories in the
> context of Quality so we can avoid the absurd position of denying the
> existence of art, morals, and values and our own consciousness. In
short,
> once you make Pirsig's Copernican shift, it is subjects and objects
(rather
> than values) that are emergent properties, and when you do, the picture
you
> get holds together much better than the one you get from the lens of
> objective science.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 02:41:59 GMT