Well I certainly managed to snare my prey there, with the "oops vs god" bait ... Platt and Ham on the one hook ... hillarious beyond my wildest dreams. Of course you saw the infinite monkeys, that is what the oops take on things is ... but it's criminal to treat chance as a "theorem" or any kind of explanation in fact. (Same goes for god too, but that's another story.)
You are confusing two things ... apparently serious scientists (like my least favourite, Dawkins) do use those blind watchmaker, infinite monkeys, climbing mount improbable, metaphors to illustrate how narrow the human perspectives of chance are, but not even these popular scientists say that chance is the explanation for anything, they are just saying that chance (including some very long shots) does happen. Not even Darwin said chance was the mechanism, just part of the process - which nobody can deny. It's just a dumb reading of what clever people write. That's life. When you've finished your fun at the "oops" parody of (travesty of, a popular public misrepresentation of) science, perhaps I could suggest you read what Island (a real scientist as it happens) has to say. (In the comment thread on my blog post above, and links to several other blogs from there). In the same way as we confuse the MoQ description of reality with reality itself, we confuse writings about science with science itself. Stick to art Platt ;-) Regards Ian On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ham (Arlo, Andre mentioned), > > [Platt] >> > Quality article. Well written. Academics could learn a thing or two >> > by analyzing and then following the principles of clear exposition the >> > article displays. >> > >> > The content reminded me of the Infinite Monkey Theorem. > > [Ham] >> Of course you realize that the theory of multi-universes leaves creation >> to >> "chance", in the same way that the Monkey Theorem does. Empty the deck >> of >> cards on the table an infinite number of times and you're bound to get a >> royal flush. Given an infinite number of tries, anything is possible, >> including the complete works of Shakespeare or a planetary habitat that >> supports intelligent life. Thus, you have grist for the mill of Arlo, who >> said last May: >> >> [Arlo] >> > As I see it, "chance" stands in contrast to "pre-ordained" or >> > "pre-planned". >> > The idea that a million eons before "man", a "plan" existed somewhere >> and >> > somehow to "bring man into existence". This is the basis of >> "intelligent >> > design". The way I see it, the MOQ is purely a metaphysics of >> "chance", >> > there is no central consciousness that planned things out, humans are >> not >> > part of some divine plan, nor were we made with deliberate intent. >> >> As a footnote to this comment: Whether we were made "with deliberate >> intent" >> or came about by chance, everything that makes us what we are has to have >> an >> originating source. > > Well, you know how I hate to disagree with Arlo. :-) As for the necessity > of an originating source, I suppose logical positivists would argue that > that, too, came about by chance. I referred to the Infinite Monkey Theory > to suggest that once you posit an infinity of chance, you can explain > anything which means, of course, you explain nothing. > >> > I was especially taken by Linde's speculation that "consciousness may be >> a >> > fundamental component of the universe. much like space and time." >> >> I've quoted Andrei Linde before, and my book includes his statement: "I >> cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores >> consciousness. >> It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely >> inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. In >> the >> absence of observers, our universe is dead." > > Only in our dualistic thought is their any separation between the universe > and consciousness, as Linde suggests in the first sentence above. > >> > I believe that the brain, instead of creating consciousness >> > as the materialists say, registers universal consciousness. >> > But, that's another story. >> >> It was also Donald Hoffman's concept, and I have you to thank for pointing >> me to him. I don't believe in a universal consciousness because >> individuality is a prerequisite for human autonomy and free choice. For >> the >> same reason, I don't believe in a collective intellect. Your description >> of >> a brain "registering universal consciousness" is similar to Pirsig's idea >> of >> the human species "evolving to" the Intellectual Level. > > I don't believe in a collective intellect either if that means everybody > thinks alike. But, that everybody thinks (creates symbolic patterns) to > survive I have no doubt. If that be collectivist, make the most of it. :-) > >> [Ian asked]: >> > Platt, did you just couch a collectivist view? >> >> [You replied]: >> > No, a unitary view with individuals tapping into the universal. >> >> Your reply doesn't convince me. Isn't "tapping into the universal" >> couching >> a collectivist view? > > No. Consciousness is not a collection of anything. It's one thing. > Various individuals tap into it, from particles to porcupines to people. > That's my conclusion anyway. Actually, consciousness (experience) logically > precedes that conclusion, or for that matter, any idea about reality. As > Andre has discovered, art is it. And when we become artists, we know it. > > Best wishes, > 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/ > 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/
