From: Richard Loggins (brloggins@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 05:36:44 GMT
Hi Nathan,
--- Nathan Pila <pila@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Does any of this contradict your views?
It sure does.
>
> The human mind did not develop as a organ to solve
> philosophical problems. Rather, it evolved for a
> very different purpose. In that it is like the
> heart, lungs, or kidneys; that is, the brain has a
> specific job to fill namely to simply enhance the
> reproductive success of the body within which it
> resides.
It is not simply that. And I would not interchange
mind with brain.
>
> This is the biological purpose of every mind, human
> as well as animal, and moreover, it is its only
> purpose. The purpose of the heart is to pump blood.
> The brain's purpose is to direct our internal organs
> and our external behavior in a way that maximizes
> our evolutionary success.
Obviously it is not the only purpose. SOM produces
problems for itself this way that a Quality
perspective dosn't have.
>
> That's it. Given this, what is remarkable that the
> human mind is good at solving any problems
> whatsoever, beyond "Who should I mate with?," "What
> is that guy up to?," "How can I help my kid?,"
> "Where are the antelopes hanging out at this time of
> year?"
It is not remarkable from the viewpoint of a MOQ. It
is only fantastic from a SOM view.
>
> There is nothing in the biological specifications
> for brain-building that calls for a device capable
> of high-powered reasoning, or of solving abstract
> problems, or even providing an accurate picture of
> the "outside" world, beyond what is needed to enable
> its possessors to thrive and reproduce.
And yet we do. That should tell you something about
your assumptions.
>
> It is unreasonable to expect the brain to be able to
> answer any question that it is capable of asking.
Exactly. Which is why we should consider that the
brain isn't involved.
>
> So, questions of morality or ultimate purpose are
> beyond the capacity of our brain to solve. Further,
> it would be beneficial for an organism to think it
> exists, ergo it is reasonable to suggest that the
> brain could be hard wired to fall for the illusion
> of 'self'.
I think your problem is believing evolutionary
psychology and taking it's dogma to extremes. I mean,
tell me why we should believe it. Have evolutionary
scientists a shred of empirical evidence for their
claims? Have they isolated the gene responisble for
thinking philosophically, or valuing one thing over
another? The search for values have evaded them
because values themselves are primary, coming before
brains. Did the entire pattern of Chris go up the
crematorium chimney, as the conservation laws of
physics demand, or can we leave open the possibility
that his higher level patterns continue to exist?
So yes, a lot of this contradicts my views and it
brings a lot of the intransigent problems of SOM to
light. Without folks like you, as Steve says, we begin
to second guess ourselves and wonder if Pirsig has
created an SOM strawman. Your living proof he hasn't!
Best wishes,
Rich
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
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 Nov 15 2003 - 05:37:28 GMT