I sort of think maybe we have to not know what we are about for a reason that can only be grasped by such experience and then taken on. Which is a guess. Our ethics don't seem to be catching up with where we're at, though have been 'way ahead' in eugenics and the like for the wrong reasons.
On Jun 11, 7:41 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/10/2011 10:00 AM, Pat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:35 pm, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/8/2011 11:33 AM, Pat wrote:> On Jun 8, 2:44 > >> pm,"[email protected]"<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> Is the right to use your intelect to draw conclusions really a right? > >>>>> Naaa I would not have thought so. > >>> Ahh, but that's not exactly what I said. I said, "you have the > >>> granted right to misinterpret the truth at your leisure". Drawing > >>> conclusions is, though, the larger part of thinking. Do we not have > >>> the appearance of the right to think? The truth, of course, is that > >>> our thoughts are God's and we're just multiprocessors with differing > >>> firmware. But it might take an IT guru to fully grasp that analogy > >> Beautiful Pat, but the analogy implies that computationally we should be > >> solving some problem or calculation: life, the universe and everything? > > The problem we are solving is the answer to the question "How do we > > get to the end of this universe?" As we don't know where it's headed, > > it's difficult for us to determine; but, for God, who can't help but > > know where the universe is headed, God simply act and we are a part of > > those actions that lead to the end. Yes, it's teleological, but space- > > time IS a teleological entity. > > You should know that I have strong reservations against an absolutely > linear (or deterministic) temporality, I agree only so far as satisfying > causal relationships. How is space-time a teleological entity? Not sure > I understand that clearly, as it seems to dissolve the further from > biological systems you get. Even the teleological focus in biology seems > for brevity, as the functions (or purposes) are complex and dynamic, > self reinforcing. Multiple goals embedded in the gene programming > competing for further expression, the arrow is repeatedly re-set to > forward and failing that test means death leaving more opportunity for > other competing genes. Hmm, this is a tough one because purpose is > emergent and apparent (IMO) though I reject outright ontological > reductionism. Perhaps considering a suitably complex conception of > either (with or without purpose) they merge, as aspects of a process. > What is the hybrid? > > Or I could be on a confused tangent, it happens. :p
