Andre: Well said. Perhaps we should add a subtitle to the MOQ:
"How to Find Freedom in an Unfree World." Regards, Platt > 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/ 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/
