John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis:
> is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY 
> with a person
> who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout 
> catholic and an excellent
>  biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, 
> he answered:
> "I never mix the two together". Tom is an excellent natural scientist 
> and has brilliant
> arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what 
> he, quite
> inderstandably - does not want to give up.
> We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of 
> intelligence.
> Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession.
> Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another?
> John M
> On 2/5/07, *Stathis Papaioannou* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>     Tom Caylor writes:
>      > On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>      > > OK. But in that case your question is just half of the
>     question, "Why do people have values?" If you have values then that
>     mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just
>     a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the
>     obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a
>     person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in
>     mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it.
>      > >
>      > > Brent Meeker
>      > >
>      > Also Stathis wrote:
>      > > Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value
>     of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say
>     "let x=good", and then you can reason logically given this.
>     Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be
>     good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the
>     way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are
>     binding. 

True.  But evolution does predict that an individual of an evolved species will 
have values, will find some things good and some bad, and further that, with 
high probability, these values will comport with reproductive success.  You 
could for example fairly easily distinguish a race of robots who were 
engineered to serve human beings (angels?) from an evolved race of robots 
simply by their behavior and implied values.  

The former do have lives with meaning - their purposes refer outside 
themselves.  The later have their own purposes.  I'm content to be one of the 

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to