On Saturday 19 April 2008 12:04 PM David discusses with Krimel: Hi Krim Well they look very fuzzy to me and Newton and Whitehead, you can try to explain to me why they are not if you like. We are only able to get to the inner states of our fellow humans & their volition due to sympathy and language, without these capacities regarding electrons we may be failing to understand how they 'act'. To me you seem to assume that electrons are bound by laws or probabilities that require no act-ion and no inner response but this is to have knowledge of electrons-in-themselves that we simply do not have. You think I am projecting, I'd suggest so are you, just something anti-human, but noetheless a human conception of the non-human. DM Hi DM, Krimel, and All, As I read through your discussion a question arises: What is the difference between ³creation² and ³evolution²? ³Something new is produced² is common to both. I agree with Krimel: ³³Choice² may be important in evolution.² This is especially true if the environment in which ³evolution² occurs is hostile, and the evolved individual is unable to continue. For a level to evolve, many things have to be favorable besides chance. ³evolution² is defined in terms of ³existence² rather than ³thing²! There may be many common things in levels of ³evolution². ³Choice² is a better explanation than ³chance². With these considerations I define an evolutionary level as a level in existence. I do not see DQ as agent, but rather as the undefined awareness that evolution has occurred and is knowable by established patterns. In terms of levels of ³existence² I accept a law of seven, which uses the musical scale as a model for "existence." Joe > DM, > > "Choice" may be important in evolution. You can say a tossed coin > "chooses" head or tails or that germs and electrons "choose" this or > that state. This is the intentional stance. But problems occur when by > "choose" we mean volitional choice. There really is a difference and > while I am the first to acknowledge fuzzy edges, these edges aren't > all that fuzzy. > > Krimel > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Krim > > But selection by choice is very important > in evolution, and we may need to consider > this assumption to find explanatory theses, > for example mates making certain sexual > choices for very showy displays. Could > find that germs or electrons appear to > favour characteristics for such reasons. > > I just have suspicions that a simple > animate/inanimate distinction is hard > to locate at a certain level and likely > to be gradual in some way. The > opposite view smells ideological to me. > > DM
On 4/19/08 12:04 PM, "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Krim > > Well they look very fuzzy to me and Newton and Whitehead, > you can try to explain to me why they are not > if you like. We are only able to get to the inner states of > our fellow humans & their volition due to sympathy and language, > without these capacities regarding electrons we may be failing > to understand how they 'act'. To me you seem to assume that > electrons are bound by laws or probabilities that require no > act-ion and no inner response but this is to have knowledge of > electrons-in-themselves that we simply do not have. You think > I am projecting, I'd suggest so are you, just something anti-human, > but noetheless a human conception of the non-human. > > DM > > >> DM, >> >> "Choice" may be important in evolution. You can say a tossed coin >> "chooses" >> head or tails or that germs and electrons "choose" this or that state. >> This >> is the intentional stance. But problems occur when by "choose" we mean >> volitional choice. There really is a difference and while I am the first >> to >> acknowledge fuzzy edges, these edges aren't all that fuzzy. >> >> Krimel >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Hi Krim >> >> But selection by choice is very important >> in evolution, and we may need to consider >> this assumption to find explanatory theses, >> for example mates making certain sexual >> choices for very showy displays. Could >> find that germs or electrons appear to >> favour characteristics for such reasons. >> >> I just have suspicions that a simple >> animate/inanimate distinction is hard >> to locate at a certain level and likely >> to be gradual in some way. The >> opposite view smells ideological to me. >> >> DM >> >>> [Platt] >>> Whether a germ knows there's an independent reality or not is debatable >>> since we don't know what it's like to be a germ. That a germ knows that >>> it's better for it to be in one place rather than another can be assumed >>> by its behavior. >>> Similarly with an electron. >>> >>> [Krimel] >>> If we don't know what a germ knows maybe we ought to just talk about what >>> it does rather than making ass-u-me-tions about what it knows. >>> Similarly with electrons. >> >> >> 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/ >> > > > 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/ 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/
