[MD] Ever redefining self

[ian glendinning]

SA, Peter, Ham Case,

(Yes - Software is the product of engineering too.)

Ham kinda proves my point that the engineering (by an engineer)
metaphor does give (some) people the opportunity to say - Ha,
scientists can't explain reality without admitting to higher order
intention. Naturally, I don't subscribe to that.

What it does show, as Ham demonstrates again, is that some things are
allowed to be metaphorical, by some people, but some aren't. In fact
anything we communicate is (or was metaphorical) until the metaphor
died, and we decided it was "as if" it was real.( ie Ha, you can't
really believe that, you had to give me a metaphor to explain it.)

The fact that Ham sees something incredibly unlikely (from a human
scale of probability) is enough for him to declare it untrue. The fact
that anyone (scientist, engineer or otherwise) chooses to use a
metaphor is simply necessary shorthand, not any lack of conviction to
truth, contingent truth naturally.

As if.

It's as if causation were real (rather than an emergent metaphor).

Douglas DNA  Adams is OK by me. BTW Case, I agree with your final
point ... the (Newtonian) watchmaker is not the metaphor I'd choose,
nor would Dawkins of course, had it not already been used by those
using the idea as evidence of a higher "maker". He was being ironic -
keeping someone else's metaphor alive - to make his natural
evolutionary point.

So Ham, no-one here is attempting to mechanise a description of
creation by a creator. No one. Just an emergent evolutionary one.

The very attraction of Pirsig is the fact that he provides an organic
evolutionary metaphor for everything. But it's a fat lot of use when
the people you're debating with don't buy evolution as a valid "cause"
of anything ;-)

Another cup of strong brownian motion generator, vicar ?
Ian