From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 02 2005 - 12:42:20 GMT
> > [Case]
> > Biological organisms are no less at the mercy of external forces than
> > rocks.
> [Platt]
> Disagree. Rocks cannot defy gravity. Birds can.
> [Case]
> First of all bird can not defy gravity.
Oh but they do, every time they fly.
> But the issue is whether or not
> they are at the mercy of external forces. Birds are in fact at the mercy of
> far more external forces than rocks. Rocks only have to worry about
> earthquakes, water and wind erosion and the like. Birds have to worry about
> predators, food shortages, finding mates, people clear cutting their
> habitats and a host of other external forces in addition to the weather.
Rocks don't worry. I don't know if birds worry or not, but they are not at
the mercy of the forces you mention any more than we are. Otherwise,
neither birds nor we would be able to survive for a minute.
> [Platt]
> I don't compare nature to a computer. Never have, never will.
> [Case]
> Why? Aren't computers part of nature? Isn't what we have learned about
> nature incorporated in their design? They have proved very useful in
> modeling natural phenomena like hurricanes and they have greatly extended
> our ability to investigate complexity itself.
Computers are neat, but they are no more part of nature than the chair on
which I sit, unless you mean by "nature" all that exists. Man-made
artifacts are not "natural" in my vocabulary.
> [Platt]
> Evolution was the context of Pirsig's statement. So there's no implication
> that "any old theory is OK," like the liberal's theory that society is to
> blame for crime.
> [Case]
> So you are subscribing to a kind of marketplace of ideas approach where the
> measure of truth is popularity?
No. I don't subscribe to truth by taking polls.
> And BTW, since societies determine what
> will be defined as crime it is hard to see how they can escape
> responsibilities for it's occurrence.
So if I set a standard of behavior for my son and he violates it, I'm to
blame? Sounds wacky to me. But, in this age when everyone wants to be a
victim and blame someone else for his troubles, I'm not surprised.
[snip]
> [Platt]
> The purpose is to continually get better. The goal is excellence. Whether
> we ever get there is undecided at this time.
> [Case]
> Ok but defining a term with more undefined terms is not helping me to
> understand what you mean. What is "betterness"? What is "Excellence"? You
> seem to imply that purpose, betterness and excellence are fundamental
> properties of nature. If that is true I would think you could at least say
> what they are and what they do.
If you don't know what betterness and excellence is, I can't tell you,
anymore than I can tell you what Beauty is.
> [Platt]
> What caused life to emerge from pond scum, what caused mind to emerge from
> frogs?
> [Case]
> The law of nature to the extent that we have uncovered them provide
> excellent explanations for this. Beyond that, are you a parent? The
> emergence of life from scum is directly observable in the reproductive
> process. It occurs in a variety of ways from single cells dividing to
> sexual reproduction. This is a wondrous process but not metaphysically
> intractable.
Wondrous it is, but you didn't answer the questions.
> [Case earlier]
> > Light and gravity and all the other forces emerged in that instant.
> [Platt]
> By what cause? For what reason?
>
> [Case]
> Ok one more time with feeling: the cause (and after all we only have to
> worry about the first one) was the Big Bang and there was no reason.
You attribute a cause to everything except the Big Bang which occurred
without cause. Now that's what I call a cop out.
> >[Case]
> > In this place and at this time the forces of nature are in the right
> > balance to allow enormous complexity. The world we live in is special
> > that way. If it weren't we wouldn't be here.
> [Platt]
> Yes. Makes you wonder how just the right balance occurred. Your answer
> is "Oops."
> [Case]
> The right balance occurs because the wrong balance is not balance at all
> and disappears. My answer is really more like, "Whoa, Dude that is cool!
> Funny how that works. I wonder what else it does."
"Dude, that's cool" is a longer way of saying, "Oops."
> In contrast your answer seems to be, "OMG, that can't be. It must serve
> some larger purpose that we can't define but at least it makes us feel less
> powerless."
My answer is, "There's a reason for everything, including things that are
beyond reason."
> [Platt]
> I give up. Do you have the answers?
>
> [Case]
> Not me but thanks for asking. On the other hand computer simulations and
> math resulting from increased computational power suggest that enormous
> complexity does result from the application of very simple sets of rules.
> Not only that but this complexity is self sustaining.
So, what's your point?
> [Platt]
> When brain scans can tell what someone is thinking, let me know.
>
> [Case]
> These scan have not been around for very long but they do reveal a great
> deal about what people are thinking and feeling; emotional and physically.
> So unless you want to do a bit a surfing on your own for that I will try to
> keep you posted.
Please do.
> > [Case]
> > So a hog finds beauty in the smell of a sow's girly parts, would you say
> > this then is intrically beautiful?
> [Platt]
> To a hog, you bet.
>
> [Case]
> This seem like beauty residing in the eye of the beholder rather than
> beauty being an property of the beheld. Are we agreeing here? I think you
> just made my point for me.
Yes, like Quality, beauty is in the eye of beholders to the extent that
beholders are different and have different life experiences. But also like
Quality, Beauty transcends the eyes of beholders as well as objects
beheld. Beauty is beyond description.
> > > [Case]
> > > But again if you could spell out what you mean by purpose that would
> > > help. Usually people get purpose all mucked up with intentionality,
> > > consciousness, divine purpose and other mushy terms that cause lots of
> > > problems because they are so hard to pin down.
> > >
> > > And the mushiest of all if supernatural. I have no idea what that term
> > > is supposed to mean.
> > [Platt]
> > It means not attributable to a material (physical) cause.
> [Case]
> Is there at least a material effect? How would one know to ascribe this
> mysterious agency to anything?
If by "material effect" you mean data processed by a bulb of nerve tissue
we call a brain, then yes. "Supernatural" aptly describes your idea of the
Big Bang occuring for no reason. But, I guess you prefer, "Oops" of "Cool,
Dude."
> [Case Repeats in desperation}
> In short these definitions you have offered are not very clear or very
> helpful.
>
> [Platt]
> Sorry about that. If you want to believe reality is one big crap shoot,
> that's fine by me. But my experience tells me otherwise.
> [Case] Oddly
> enough everything in my experience suggests it is a big crap shoot. The
> world I see is organic, fluid and mysterious. It is fundamentally
> indefinable but experienced intimately. It is wondrous and terrifying. I
> recommend the book of Ecclesiastes.
Are you suggesting God plays dice? Einstein didn't think so.
Platt
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 Dec 02 2005 - 12:58:51 GMT