[Willblakes] I am not a fan of Intelligent Design, never have been, the site was meant to direct to alternate views. Intelligent design and evolution are pretty much the same, anyway. Unless you would say that Nature is not intelligent. To do this you would have to include yourself as you are a product of Nature. Our perception is simple compared to what is possible.
[Krimel] There were a couple of points of agreement there that I didn't want to spoil by commenting. But here I think you running out of bounds. ID and evolution aren't the same at all. ID claims that some unspecified other, intentionally alters or creates life forms. This just leave open the question of who or what and where the who or what came from. This is Ham's answer and it really isn't an answer at all. It is just a way of avoiding the question. Evolution on the other hand recognizes chance and chaos as the creative background from which static patterns emerge. The MoQ could get with this program as well if could at last free itself of the mystico-theistic baggage some here insist on packaging it with. But no I don't thing Nature is intelligent rather it is opportunistic and intelligence emerges from the layering of static patterns churning up in the wake of DQ. In other word saying that Nature has intelligence growing in it is not the same as saying Nature is intelligent. [Willblake2] Narrow visual field, limited sensing of chemicals, very blunt sense of touch, limited auditory capability. The energy flux goes from very small wavelengths to infinitely large ones, from compressed energy (matter), to the photon, from possible timelessness to a single time. That is what I mean. I am not trying to diminish our senses, just put them in perspective to the possible. I would agree that the chemistry of perception is not well categorized, but it does have narrow limits. [Krimel] We have evolved sense receptors that encode and decode information in the form it is most likely to be presented to us. Of course we could have different organs tuned to different kinds and ranges of stimulation but the ones we have stood the pragmatic test of utility over time. I get your point at least if your point is that they could be different or that they could be more or less sensitive. But I think point is that we have evolved the ones that we have and they serve the purpose that evolution demands of them. You make this sound like Dean Stockard's Cylon character who is really mad at the head Cylon chick for putting them in flimsy organic bodies with sucky sensory and perceptual systems. It as though if someone intelligent had actually designed this stuff wouldn't they have done a better job? [Willblakes again] I would say that words diminish our sense of reality. It puts reality into neat little separate boxes, rather than the continuum it is. What is more pleasurable skiing down a hill, or walking down step by step. [Krimel] Yes, that is what they do. Concepts do as much to filter out the nonessential as they do to highlight what is essential. James talks about perception as being continuous and dynamic while conception is discrete and static. While conception depends entirely on perception and is always secondary he acknowledges that we cannot get along very well without both. [Krimel earlier] We or at least I don't agree that symbols are not real. Whatever gave you that idea? For many of the folks here symbols are the only reality. That is what idealism is. [Willblakes again] When I say not real, I am simply saying that they have no physical basis. Of course they are real in our heads. [Krimel] It think this is an important point that Pirsig makes. Ideas are no less "real" than "objects" which are no less "in our heads" than ideas. James' point is that we are able to convert ideas into material forms to such an extent that the distinction between perception and conception is easily blurred. [Willblakes again] Yes, the reference is unnecessary, simply an extreme example. The point is that other methods of thought are possible, and just as valid. I do not subscribe to the notion that survival denotes better realities. This is an evolutionary notion, where death is negative/failure. So when you say, but not for long, I do not see your argument. [Krimel] You are correct. Extremes often serve to highlight. But yeah, we can experience a variety of states of consciousness often intentionally and often without noticing any transition. But you make a key point, lost on some here. Survival does not mean "better" it just means lucky. "Better" however it is conceived might enhance ones' odd but it is not a guarantee. While I think death is negative/failure I think that too is a matter of luck; just bad luck. In evolution "better" and "worse" are statistical statements about quantitative rather than qualitative value. [Willblake2] Often we try to use the outer world of science to explain or deny the inner world of spirituality. Since we find it easier to communicate through the outer world, it is easier to give it more credence, simply through a positive feedback system. The danger is to live solely in that outer world of science, and then try to satisfy an inner spiritual world with it. This can never work, because they are two separate illusions. Believe me, in this country we try to do that, and it is getting extremely complex, only because it fails. A recession comes, and it seemingly destroys our inner peace, because we associate the objective world with the subjective world. [Krimel] Ok, I think I am with you up to a point but I think that science often augments spiritual understanding. Also I think it is possible to hold multiple points of view, even conflicting points of view, in mind at the same time. I think recessions and the like are manifestations of dynamic quality that interject uncertainty into our lives. Uncertainty, is what causes our distress. We are built to reduce uncertainty and when we fail it bugs us. [Willblakes again] Perhaps we should leave science out of it. How about logical thought. If we try to explain the subjective world with logical thought, we will always fail. There is much that will never be logical. We ignore that which isn't, as though it doesn't exist. For example that we are here as individuals (you and I in the personal sense) is not logical. [Krimel] This is the kind of thing that I think brain science does illuminate. Logic and verbal thinking results from the particular processing qualities of Broca's and Werneke's areas. That says something about the nature and function of words and logic. The demonstration of highly intelligent nonverbal functions in the right hemisphere are equally enlightening with regards to the structure and functions of consciousness and the unconscious. But a more direct answer would be that we have no need of logic or language if we are only interested in our own subjective world. What can words or reason add to direct experience? Higher brain functions do seem to serve as "free won't" allowing us to override instinctive reactions but that's about it from the inside. I suspect their evolutionary function is an elaboration of emotional communication to facilitate social interaction. But if you are merely indicating that communication is by its very nature "lossy" I am with you on that one. I may be wrong but it seems we had a lot more common ground that I would have thought. 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/
