[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Platt Holden]

SA:
 
>      Volcano's, mineral content, erosion, What will
> come up that volcano that makes the soil possible for
> certain kinds of plants to grow here or there?  Did
> you know a volcano is erupting under the ocean near
> Hawaii?  Nobody knew, I'm sure the ocean did not know,
> not even the inorganic magma knew what its'
> compositions would be when that crack in the earth
> finally gave way and at that moment whatever the
> composition of the magma was at that particular moment
> in time, that's the kinds of inorganic material
> surfacing as lava making certain material grow in
> structure that will soon make another island near all
> the other island chains that are Hawaii.  The magma is
> constantly mixing and at certain regions of the earth
> different inorganic mixtures of lava surface.  When
> the crust is broken whatever mix of magma is at that
> place, at that point in time then that's what
> inorganic material will be on the surface.  If the
> crack in the crust held a little longer or broke
> earlier we would notice different inorganic materials
> surfacing.  What mixture will surface producing a soil
> for the next level, organic level, is all
> unpredictable by the inorganic level.

Like I asked, how does what you say, if true, move evolution towards 
betterness or indicate the arrival of a new life form on the planet? 

>      Platt said:  "IMO if scientists will eventually
> be able through
> > gene manipulation to 
> > produce babies immune to cancer and other diseases
> > and extend human 
> > life hundreds of years, they will be able to produce
> > babies to look 
> > like whoever you specify."
> 
>      The intellectual level can bring us here, but
> what of the biological level predicting this?  It's
> not happening.

As far as I know the biological level can predict nothing, nor can the 
inorganic or social levels. Only individual human beings can predict, 
and I predict that we will never observe the biological level producing 
a new life form. Of course, as humans we can theorize and speculate all 
we want.  

>      Platt said:  "The fact that as of now
> > the looks of your 
> > baby aren't predictable simply means the technology
> > of genetics still 
> > has a ways to go. But, all the mechanisms are known.
> > The biological 
> > pattern of a human being is no mystery."
> 
>      Sure a human being, but there are billions of us,
> the diversity is as high as their are people on this
> earth, and that unpredictability of the biology is
> because of the other factors in development that
> biology, DNA, is not predicting, such as food, water,
> quality of air, etc...  Now the intellectual level
> might know this, but how does skin know this?  It
> doesn't.

I'm not sure what you are driving at. Are you suggesting that a new 
human life form is about to evolve? 

>      Your talking about evolution here, I'm not.

Sorry. I thought that was the context of our conversation. If you are 
saying we can't predict which way the wind will blow in the next 
second, I agree. But what that has to do with MOQ you'll have to 
explain to me.
. 
>      Platt said:  "You have a lot less faith in
> science and technology
> > than I do."
> 
>      Science might be able to predict this, but skin? 
> Come on now, please. 

Are we really talking about the predictive ability of skin? Please.

>      Platt said:  "I was speaking about knowing a
> formula for a
> > successful metaphysics, 
> > not about knowing the history of astronomy or
> > natural science. If you 
> > know of such a formula, please share it with the
> > rest of us."
> 
>      These are successful metaphysics of what is.  You
> think highly of science, right.  Well, since these
> metaphysics turned into science in time, they are
> successful formula's for metaphysics.

Would you mind spelling out the formula for for a successful 
metaphysics for me and others? I'm all ears.

>      Platt said:  "I think you are saying that since
> you cannot predict
> > the outcome of a 
> > spin of inorganic roulette wheel that it responds to
> > DQ. What I am 
> > saying is nothing in the inorganic, biological, or
> > social levels 
> > responds to DQ so as to move evolution any higher
> > than what it has 
> > already accomplished in the life form of a human
> > being."
> 
>      Move evolution any higher?  What does higher
> mean?  Are you talking about as tall as a mountain or
> as high as the clouds?  As high as a bird flies?  They
> are higher than humankind.  Even the moon and sun are.

Higher means at a higher moral level as Pirsig describes with a 
thinking human being at the top. 

Platt