I guess Arlo doesn't get it. So to repeat: "We see that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same purpose as the subatomic forces had when they first began to create him (a scientist) billions of years ago." (Lila, 11-parens added)
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Platt quotes Pirsig] > "We see that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same purpose > as the subatomic forces had when they first began to create him (a > scientist) billions of years ago." (Lila, 11-parens added) > > [Arlo] > Since I had said this. > > "Choice" by lower level patterns does not translate into "intent" in the > emergence of higher level patterns. That single cell organisms respond to DQ > biologically- exercise "choice" within the limitations and constraints of > their construction- does not mean that the appearance of human bodies was > intentional." > > I assume your contention is meant to proclaim that those subatomic > particles had the "intent" or "plan" to make a scientist? Where did that > intent reside? In the subatomic particles? Since subatomic particles do not > have "minds" or "brains", where exactly does this "intent" reside? > > Since "man" is so much more evolved than, say, algae, why would subatomic > particles, given their ability to make such intentional plans and carry them > out continue to create algae when they could turn themselves into a > chemistry professor instead? > > Indeed, if a billion years ago these subatomic particles had the intent to > make a chemistry professor, why did they wait a billion years? Why not just > make one then? Why mess around with dinosaurs and primates and all that? > > Of course, its ridiculous to propose that subatomic particles had any > "intent" or "plan" to make a chemistry professor. "Chemistry professors" are > the unintentional consequences of a host-load of collective activity among a > variety of patterns; beginning with inorganic patterns and stretching to > intellectual patterns. But "intent" is no where in this mix. Its an absurd > and indefensible claim to make. > > But try to answer (you won't). Where exactly did your proposed "intent" > reside a billion years ago? In the mind of a subatomic particle? Or is > free-will and choice completely out the window and "intent" is simply the > universe unfolding according to some predetermined "plan" of God? (Which, > let me guess, has always been to bring about the Wonderous and Glorious > "Man"?) > > No intent. Unintended consequences. AHA! > > > > 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/
