Hi Ham, > [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.
I guess you missed what I said about "the laws of physics" being unfriendly to life. Once you leave the inorganic realm of physics you are into a whole different ball game -- the game of life. How did it begin? I like Pirsig's explanation. What's your theory? > 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. Indeed it is, as are many effects from physical laws, like sunsets and stars. > 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 for one am no fan of the "oops" theory of creation. I lean toward the "Ethical Requirement" theory expounded by the Canadian philosopher John Leslie as described in "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies. Leslie's theory seems to complement Pirsig's MOQ wherein the thrust towards "betterness" solves many mysteries how and why there are "firsts" followed by others. [Arlo] > > [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. [Ham] > 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. Hard for me to believe that the universe didn't exist before we humans arrived on the scene . . . if that's what you mean. > 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? My cat whose descendants were probably around long before mine show every evidence of judging things as "valuable," from the food in his dish to the blanket in his bed. In fact I maintain (along with Pirsig) that "value" is recognized and acting upon accordingly by every entity known, including cats, bugs, cells, and atoms. > 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? What is more plausible to me is value-sensible creatures, from apes to atoms, making up what we call 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. I find "value-sensibility" the essence not just of man, but of the universe including man. > 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. In the "cognitive sense," we do create the universe with our experience, language and concepts. But in the broader sense, the "psychic essence" which encapsulates value judgement pervades the entire universe. As the Nobel Prize winning zoologist Konrad Lorenz put it: "What the organism learns about its environment can be expressed in the simple phrase, 'It's better here' or 'It's not so good here.' " > Please allow this idea to "settle in", gentlemen, before launching your > verbal attack. No attack intended, Ham. Just expressing a different view. I could be wrong. So could you. So could we all. Regards, Platt 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/
