Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Wilber uses the metaphor of Flatland to describe the shortcomings of science > which deals with surfaces all the way down -- all span and no depth. For > science all is particulate, right down to quantum particles which exist in > spooky "potentialities." Thought on which science depends is not, of course, > > particulate -- a fact blithely ignored. Why? Because science hasn't a clue > as to how thought emerges from a lump of meat. > > [Krimel] > Odd then that the emergent hierarchy Pirsig comes up with follows a clearly > scientific path of development from the inorganic to the intellectual.
So, science is on a path now with a goal somewhere ahead? Or is it a path to nowhere? An while you're at it, please identify the force behind the "development." Atomic, magnetic, gravity? What? > Science does tell us how thought arises from a lump of meat. You just don't > like the answers because they don't tell you why. No, I don't like the answers because they make no sense. Thought arises from the complexity of neural synapses? Yeah, right. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
