Hi Case Well that's my point really, there is life, there are coins, there are particles. Really dumb to assume that the processes at one level have the same aspects as the others. So lets keep ideas from gambling at the right level shall we, otherwise you have no defence against my animist counter examples.
See it rules out this crap as well as animism: > To say that nature makes choices is like saying that a tossed coin chooses > to turn up heads. (I'd say nature makes choices, we don't know how, is it all contingent, is it all law, is it a force, is it desire for quality? we don't know. I kinda think the approach you take will uncover different aspects of reality. What bugs me about your view is its monotheistic certainty about what is inanimate. As I asked, anything inbetween or to the sideof animism and inanimism? Natural selection is one example, i.e. selection can enable what is random to evolve, this is very odd, and very dependent on an initial circumstance where something is able to self-replicate and still access variety. And where life acts purposefully this again changes the game.) Then again, gotta use some kind of analogy, so animism is as good as it is useful. Funny thing is read any sort of books on biology and the language is entirely animistic although only for short hand is the usual defence, yet they can't seem to help themselves. David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? > [David M] > Again you are missing the distinction between what is possible for > us, with our planand actions etc, and what is possible/impossible > for the whole of reality, if we are to tell a cosmic story of which we > are only a part. If you consider this, like Dirac you have to ponder > the strange capacity of a so-called inanimate nature (pre-life) to > make choices about events that have mulitple possibilities. Could be > random, but with life we gety agency, is there anything inbetween? > > [Krimel] > If we are to tell a cosmic story I think it should be our own story. In > fact > I think that is the only story we can ever tell. > > To say that nature makes choices is like saying that a tossed coin chooses > to turn up heads. > > I don't think this is the sort of thing we do when we make choices and see > no reason to suggest they are equivalent by using the same word to > describe > their behavior. > > As you say with life we get agency. Agency does involve purposeful > behavior. > But life, agency and purpose are emergent properties. They arise from the > inorganic. But the inorganic is a pretty strange realm in its own right. > > 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/ > 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/
