Hi Rog:
> ROG:
> Sorry, but I sense something wrong with this argument. To presuppose that
> atoms have "choice" and "awareness" and a "vague sense of betterness"
> overstates the issue to the point of absurdity, or at least to the point of
> making the terms "choice," "awareness," and "sense" meaningless.
>
> Perhaps the real nemesis here is a philosopher trying to reduce the entire
> universe into one oversimplified principle that they can fit onto a Tee shirt.
>
> But perhaps I am just being negative.....
Perhaps you're right. I take it you disagree with physicist Freeman
Dyson that "Mind, as manifest by the capacity to make choices, is to
some extent inherent in every atom" and that you disagree with Pirsig
who wrote, "But in modern quantum physics all that is changed.
Particles "prefer" to do what they do."
My guess is that such sentences are too metaphorically strong for your
liking and thus present a false picture. Instead of "awareness" would
you accept Whitehead's much less provocative word "prehension" to
describe a particle's response to an observation or an atom's
sensitivity to its environment?
It seems to me that some form of awareness at the inorganic level, no
matter how dim, (and no matter how described) is required if the MOQ
theory of value-centered evoution driven by Dynamic forces is to hold
up. You cannot strive for something better without at least "sensing" in
some fashion or other a more desirable state to aspire to.
I'd be interested to know at what point in the hierarchy of evolution you
consider that "awareness," "choice," and "sense" become
meaningless, and how you think those qualities can originate from
elements that lack them if indeed that is your belief.
One final question. Do I detect a weakening of your confidence in the
MOQ over the years?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
