[MD] Probability

[Case]

[gav]
i think that the universe or cosmos or 'the whole shebang' is evolving;
evolution is implicitly teleological (it doesn't make sense in any other
way); therefore if the universe is ultimately one then everything is part of
that evolution; ie it can make sense to assign purpose to the inanimate
world. do you think evolution is a fallacy?, or perhaps takes too much of a
leap of faith? 

[Case]
Evolution is about change. That's all. It is the study of the conditions of
the environment and organic response to the environment over time. As the
environment changes, organisms change.

Purpose is about meaning. It is about Why? When you introduce purpose and
teleology you wind up with this weird situation where some future end is
causing events in the present. Since the future is undetermined and can not
be predicted, this seems very unsatisfactory to me.

Purpose is a purely human phenomenon. I think it is extremely valuable but I
think we need to look to ourselves to find it not pawn it off on God or the
Cosmos.

[gav]
i like Bohm a lot: the universe is energy, matter and meaning. meaning
connects with purpose.

[Case]
I am not familiar with Bohm but I agree that the universe is energy and
matter. Meaning is human trait and to the extent that we are energy and
matter it is part of the universe as well.

[gav]
also consciousness or awareness is the ground of being; nothing exists
independent of perception of it. if a tree falls in the forest..... 
consciousness/awareness has us; we don't have it (we have helped facilitate
a form of consciousness - self-consciousness - which seems peculiarly human,
at least on earth, and makes some of us believe that only humans are
conscious at all.)

[Case]
I see consciousness as a purely organic phenomenon. I do not think it
resides in the inanimate world. Natural processes will survive our
individual deaths and the extinction of our species. But I see a telling
correspondence between the complexity of our nervous systems and the
evolution of consciousness.

[gav]
>To the extent that Pirsig invokes purpose of this sort I have been highly
critical. His chapter on evolution is particularly rank in this regard. 

that is unfair in my opinion. i think you are misreading him.

[Case]
When this was first pointed out to me, I didn't believe it. When I reread
the chapter in light of what people were saying, I was flatly outraged. I
wrote a long furious post about it which I either failed to send or has
disappeared from the archives. If I can find it I will edit and resubmit it.
But I don't think I was misreading. I was violently disagreeing.