Krimel said: ...I really do not see how imputing intention and volition into the inorganic level can be seen as anything other than theology. But maybe you have some sense of why it is not.
dmb says:The imputation is based on things like "probability distributions", as I already explained. It agrees with the data and, as Andre pointed out, its just a matter of inferring backwards from chemistry professors to chemicals. I would also point out that our biological cousins exhibit basic moral sensibilities like fairness. Even rats show an aversion to cruelty. This is not a supernatural claim at all. It's based on what we can observe about how preferences work in our own experience and what we can observe in the social, biological and physical worlds. It's only a reasonable extension or extrapolation from the macro into the micro. I thought you were all in love with fractals? That's all it is. Pirsig is only saying that when we zoom down into the inorganic, the same preference patterns continue on a smaller scale. I understand that we normally draw the line that that the ability to "choose" a response begins only when life begins. But now the behavior of subatomic particles can no longer be explained in terms of strict causal laws, with seemingly impossible tricks all around. There was an experiment wherein two particles were separated from each, with one staying in an Ivy League lab on the east coast and the other was taken to a University lab on the west coast. They found that certain operations on one caused an effect on the other, some 3,000 miles away. Apparently, the particles were dear old friends whose affection for each other transcended time and space. Or there was the experiment in Boulder 10 or 15 years ago wherein a certain physical transformation was "refused" until the experimenters stopped looking. These chemicals weren't even fooled by cameras. They absolutely love their privacy. I mean, physical reality responds in ways we don't quite understand, that defy our notions about cause and effect, that suggest the consciousness of the experimenters can play a determining role in what can be observed. In some cases, photons seem to "know" how the experimental apparatus is arranged. I'm not saying that the term "preference" explains all this weirdness. I'm just saying that all this weirdness makes physical reality look a lot less "dead" than it used to look. Krimel said: But a sense of "betterness" does not guarantee the "betterness" will follow. dmb says: That's true. There are no guarantees. But a sense of betterness sure does improve the chances. That's what I meant by saying preference adds a certain efficiency to the evolutionary process. Krimel said: Exactly, what survives in not necessarily better than what preceded it. dmb says: Your dad told me the same thing and your grandfather agreed quite emphatically. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009 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/
