[MD] Ever redefining self

[Heather Perella]

Hello Ian,


> My view is a plea for the "engineering view" of
> reality (I am an
> engineer after all).
> Engineering = Ingenuity.
> Ingenious = "Pragmatic ways to get there from here"
> - to bridge gaps.
> (And to link up some threads - Rocket science = just
> engineering with a vision.)

     An architecture has a vision of a building, and
as any artist may attest, once the drawing begins,
these spaces that happen to form outside of the basic
structure and intended shape of the building,
appearances of spaces that have no use appear.  They
are just there.  Sure they bridge gaps between corners
on a square building, but let an artist loose in these
gaps and paintings and designs of all kinds will
appear.  What do these paintings and designs have to
do with the basic structure and integrity of the
building?  Nothing, yet, the beauty and intelligent
stories the designs and/or pictures may tell tickle
the mind into thoughts and feelings.  So a once,
nothing, became filled by stories and designs.  What
are the vision of these stories and designs?  Some
stories have morals and become entertainment to
others, same goes for designs/symbols.  What are they
doing to us?  What kind of behavior are they
influencing?  All questions that deal with the
thousand year old wondering of 'What is self?'.
 
> Anyway, the problem with the Engineering view of how
> reality came to
> be is that it seems to fall into the admission of a
> creative force -
> the blind watchmaker - intetionally creating the
> reality we see. It is
> of course just a metaphor for the "emergence" from
> many levels of
> interacting complexity - which "seem as if" they
> have design intent.
> ("Seem as if" vs "causality" .... see Paul Turner)

     This 'seem as if' vs causality' is a world of
questioning and wondering that somebody named Paul
Turner debates, I guess?

> I notice biologist E O Wilson, whose Consilience I'm
> only just
> reading, frequently calls on the engineering view to
> imagine how a
> biological problem would get solved - the line being
> that evolution is
> naturally efficient, and solutions to problems will
> naturally tend to
> be the best, most efficient engineering solution to
> any given problem.
> The human brain is the archetypical example. One
> cannot imagine
> creating artificial consciousness, without first
> creating an
> artificial brain, with artificial life demands on
> it. Arificial
> Evolution = Engineering. It would look pretty much
> like the real
> thing, even if it wasn't made of meat.

     Are you saying the structure comes first, then
consciousness?  If so, this is a long argued debate
about the self, in which many will end up having to
side with one side or another, or just live their
lives on blind faith, as we do for the most already. 
We live our lives and then question what we are, and
what we are doing.  We will wonder about ourselves
(which includes the world) til we die as experience
brings on new definition.  So we come into this world
without a plan, then try to draw one up, and by the
time we think we know who we are or how to go about
doing things, something else happens and we
reconfigure the new results.  We even pass on
information to our young, hoping to give them results
of our lives thinking and calling that wisdom since it
worked.  Then you have a world of change where
everything, by our young, will have to be reevaluated,
and our wisdom does help, and their own ingenuity will
be handy. 

Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com