> Ron and Platt [Arlo mentioned]-- > > > Ron: > > Personally speaking, I really do not see how knowing > > how life began is useful in any way. Once we have that > > answer (if an answer is even possible) what use could > > it have? How would it apply to our everyday life? > > would it change anything? > > My point, exactly. Myriads of chemical and biological processes > constantly > protect and sustain the human organism. Would knowing the details of such > processes, and when they became operational, make us any wiser or more > enlightened? Would it matter to us if consciousness in Homo > neanderthalens > was not as "fully formed" as that of Homo habilis? For scientists who > are > concerned about such data, including the sociological factors, > Anthropology > can provide some answers. Mankind has managed to survive and flourish > quite > well without such knowledge, but the question before Philosophy which > should > concern man is not HOW consciousness developed in the species but WHAT IT > IS. > > Platt: > > I agree that a metaphysics ought to explain how life began, > > and Pirsig does so in Chapter 11 of LIla. You may not agree > > with his account, but to me it makes a lot more sense than > > the scientific account of "oops." > > Do you really think this is an explanation? > > "Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic > forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge > static > inorganic forces at a superatomic level. They do this by selecting > superatomic mechanisms in which a number of options are so evenly > balanced that a weak Dynamic force can tip the balance one way or > another." > --LILA, Chpt 11, pg 167 > > To me this describes an accident about to happen, without cause or > purpose, > save for chance "tipping the balance" of random atomic forces. "Oops?" > Surely, the making of a chemistry professor from carbon atoms (whose > reality > Pirsig himself denies) calls for a more sophisticated scenario than > this!
Maybe if you read the entire chapter you will have a different take. But, like I said, you may not agree with his account. Obviously you don't. Do you think Krimel's "spontaneously arising configurations of order" is more "sophisticated?" > Arlo, who claims to have a "simple, direct" answer to the mystery of > consciousness based on the MoQ, articulated it to Christopher in this > fashion: > > > To rephrase this along the lines of the questions that Ham and Platt > > are incapable of addressing: > > > > What changed between early primates without consciousness and > > humans with consciousness is... a level of neuro-biological complexity > > brought about by DNA-driven biological evolution that spawned the > > unintended consequence of allowing shared attention and hence the > > emergence of social activity. > > > > The mechanism by which consciousness evolves is.... the collective > > consciousness (the "mythos"), which evolves over time as new > > generations and new individuals assimilate it and add to it and > > modify it. Successive generations of primates assimilated a greater > > and more complex collective consciousness than their forefathers and > > foremothers, and their activity moved it further still. > > > > And to restate, from here the growing complexity of the social level > > (shared symbolic activity) hit a level of complexity where it was > > able to become self-reflective (the experiential descriptor "blue" > > went from being a modifier in shared activity to a "thing in itself", > > "what is blueness?"). The "self" is one such self-referential loop. > > And if you buy into Arlo's theory that "DNA-driven spawning of shared > attention at the social level" became "self-reflective" individual > consciousness, I can probably sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. Any relation of Arlo's theory and the MOQ is solely a figment of his imagination. He does have a tendency to float lead balloons as explanations. Best 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/
