Re: MD out of our depth

From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 23:47:56 GMT

  • Next message: Nathan Pila: "MD Life is ...."

    Richard,

    You ask, '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?'

    In my opinion, the pattern that represented Chris has been obliterated. It
    is no longer there. The conservation laws are not violated because they
    apply only to energy or matter not to patterns.

    When I eat a fish, I use the proteins that the fish used, in another way.
    The flesh of the fish is broken down and reassembled into raw materials that
    my body uses to rebuild me.

    In the same way that the fish disappears when eaten, Chris disappeared when
    burnt to a crisp.

    What is wrong with my metaphor?

    Nathan

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Richard Loggins" <brloggins@yahoo.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:36 AM
    Subject: Re: MD out of our depth

    > 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
    >

    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 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 23:48:37 GMT