From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 02:07:57 GMT
Steve,
Believe me when I say that I have no interest in irritating you. If I did I
didn't mean to.
If I can paraphrase your position it would be that you postulate that there
is more to the universe than matter and energy. I make the assumption that
the universe consists only of matter and energy.
In my mindset, there are no ghosts, or spirits or an anthropomorphic God, or
angels, devils, heaven or hell; there is no morality, no standard of conduct
that is 'correct' and no reward for the righteous and no punishment for the
wicked. "What you see is what you got". Life is for a finite period and when
you die, you disappear as an individual. The flowers and rocks will not miss
you although your friends and family might.
You, on the other hand, have a different view and reject much of what I
think is true. ( I don't mind because I am not 100% sure that I'm right and
it could very well be that you are correct.) As far as telling you where you
are wrong, I can't because in part, you may be right. I will agree with what
I think you believe namely that reason and the dogma of the "Church of
Reason" is only one way to see the world.
Right now, it happens to be the Church that holds my mind. At least until I
become a convert. :)
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: MD Pinker says..
> Hi Nathan,
>
> You said:
> > Here is a quote from one of my favourite authors on the subject of the
brain.
> > Do the questions it asks have answers in using the ZMM framework?
> >
> > "Unless you accept the idea that there is an immortal human soul
injected into
> > the human body by God at the time of birth, there is no conductor of the
> > psychological orchestra, so to speak, just billions of neurons forming
systems
> > that feel like a self.
> >
> > The absence of such a conductor even as we experience changes in our
> > psychological outlooks undermines the belief that we (i.e., through a
> > controlling self) "can change what we don't like about ourselves."
> >
> > But, "Who or what is the 'we'? If the 'we' doing the remaking are just
other
> > hunks of matter in the biological world, then any malleability of
behavior we
> > discover would be cold comfort, because we, the molders, would be
biologically
> > constrained.
> >
> > It appears that a human is like an onion; if you strip away the layers
there
> > is nothing there at the center.
>
>
> Ok, you've finally convinced me. I don't actually exist.
>
> On second thought, there is no argument at all let alone a convincing one
to
> be found in the above. Excuse my irritability, but I've spent a lot of
time
> explaining to you why I think it doesn't make sense to reduce existence
to
> material and how a metaphysics of quality is more consistent with
experience
> than a mind/matter metaphysics, and here you just come back with "look,
here
> is another real smart guy who thinks he doesn't really exist, either."
>
> We already know there are plenty of people who think the way you do.
That's
> why Pirsig wrote his books and why we are all here.
>
> Can you tell me where my arguments fell flat for you? Seriously, I'm glad
> to discuss this with you, but remember the issue is about the assumptions
we
> make about reality and where they lead us. I don't think Pinker has
> anything to say about our assumptions. He probably doesn't not even know
> he's making the ones were talking about. If he actually does have
something
> to say about why a value-based metaphysics is misguided, then by all means
> bring his arguments into the discussion.
>
> We agree that a substance-based metaphysics leads one to conclude that you
> don't really exist. The question is whether a substance-based metaphysics
> makes more sense than a metaphysics of quality. I've tried to point out
> where I think a metaphysics of quality is better. I hope you'll tell me
why
> you think I'm wrong so we can move forward.
>
> 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 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 02:17:54 GMT