> > [Krimel] > > I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are > attempting > > to > > read choice and intention into even the inorganic level. I don't see > how > > this differs from theology in the least. Platt sneers a chance but at > > least > > acknowledges some kind of vague theological convictions. Dave, just > > pretends > > that whatever it is he is saying, it is not theology. > > [Platt] > Pirsig: "I think the answer (Are atoms aware?) 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." (LC, 30) > > Guess that makes Pirsig a theologian. Yeah, right. > > [Krimel] > No, but it makes his use of the term "preference" indistinguishable from > "probability" expect in so far as it allows you free reign to confuse > the > meaning between levels.
So you agree that atoms experience? 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/
