Platt, Arlo, Krimel, Ian, et al -- My message under the "Dawkins quotes" heading didn't post, so maybe Horse has had enough of it. Since we've come a long way from Dawkins, it seemed a good opportunity to change the title.
[Platt]: > As for the laws of physics being inimical to human life, I draw on Pirsig: > "The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly static > pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no single > living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day out." Humans thumb their noses at many things -- politicians for one. But to assert that the laws of the universe are "inimical" to human life is not only an exaggeration, it's ludicrous. Anyone who has studied embryology, physiology, or immunology has to marvel at the exquisite design of nature's organisms and the life processes that sustain them. If I learned anything as a naive young pre-med student, it was that complexity is no challenge for nature. The design itself may not be "beautiful" in an esthetic sense, Platt, but the overall scheme most definitely is. But I suspect that you and Arlo have misinterpreted me and the Lanza quote. For example, Arlo says: > [H]ad those variables been different, the cosmos WOULD be > teaming with life. Perhaps the universe collapsed and exploded > a zillion times, and this one time we see as special is actually the > one comparatively devoid? That, of course, is logically plausible IF you believe that ontogeny (creation) is only a result of probability (e.g., the chaos theory). But here's where the misconception becomes apparent... > [I]sn't it also arrogant to assume "we" are the final leg in this chain? > Maybe, like the dinosaurs, we exist only so that our decomposing > bodies will one day grant a future species some form of fuel. > We have this illusion of being on a pinnacle because we can > look back but never ahead. Let me set you both straight as to the Essentialist ontology. ... The universe is a valuistic PRODUCT of human experience. It isn't as if matter and energy conspired to create man, or that after an infinite number of possible interactions, one of them miraculously produced man. Man produces the universe. That's the anthropic principle in four simple words. Now, while Arlo shouts "Arrogance!" and Platt finds a suitable rebuff from Pirsig, consider this concept for a moment. If what is called "intelligent", "beautiful" or "valuable" is always the judgment of a human being, would such assessments of the universe exist in his absence? Is it not more plausible that the purposeful pattern of evolution and the physical laws guiding it toward the development of a value-sensible creature are intrinsic to human cognizance rather than to an external reality? I seem to recall Mr. Pirsig telling us that experience equals reality. If this is true, and if experience is not just a passive response to neural stimuli but the "effective cause" of phenomena, then this "miracle" in one of our own making. It is born of the essence of man, which is value-sensibility. We are one with the universe, not because our brains and bodies are composed of its elements but because our "psychic essence" is derived from its absolute source. Man is not only the "choicemaker" of his universe, he is in the cognitive sense its Creator. Please allow this idea to "settle in", gentlemen, before launching your inevitable verbal attack. Cheers, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
