Hi Zenith: (Is that correct?) First, welcome to the group. From this post it appears you much of value to contribute. I wonder, however, why you don't use capital letters. In this format, it makes understanding more difficult.
> >> [Platt, syllogized] > >> 1) humans are aware > >> 2) humans are composed of particles > >> 3) :. particles are aware. > >> > >> This reasoning has got to go, else: > >> 1´) humans are bipedal > >> 2´) humans are composed of particles > >> 3´) :. particles are bipedal. > >> Craig > > > > Does this reasoning have to go, too? > > > > "If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are > > composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise > > choice too." (Lila, 12) > > yes. don't make me look up the exact name of the fallacy, but I'm > relatively certain there is one. I could be wrong, though. > but I'm no logician. Still debatable then? > there is a saying that goes something like "the whole is worth more than > the sum of its parts" > > in terms of consciousness, they call it an "emergent property," like > probability, the effect is not realized until a large number of events are > put together > which one author I read wryly interpreted to mean, "we don't know what the > hell happens, but at some point a miracle happens and ta-da, a brain > creates a mind that is 'aware'" Yes. I call it the "oops" explanation that science appeals to when stymied. "Miracle" will do just as well. > its one of the problems of consciousness... there's the 'hard problem' and > the 'easy problem' and I forget which is which... there was article in > Time magazine about it awhile back. > to me, its a bit like asking why the speed of light is c and not some > other number, why DNA chose to replicate itself, why life evolved... who > cares, really? a lot of the 'why' questions science can't answer. but I > digress. A wise digression, the foundation of metaphysics. > back to the point: to say that a particle is aware is a little like saying > that a hair is bald. alright, fine, but its bald in a totally different > way than a man is, so there ought to be a different word for it. Maybe "aware" is the wrong word as you suggest. Here's how Pirsig phrased it: "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but do not react to them biologically socially or intellectually. They react to these experiences inorganically, according to the laws of physics." (Note 30, Lila's Child). 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/
