[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

Mon Jan 15 13:23:33 PST 2007

     [SA asked previously]
1)  Does science teach people morals?

     [Case]
No. Simply put, science is about what "is". Morality
is about "ought to 
be"...

--------
     I agree.

     [SA asked previously]
2)  Does science introspect its' (exploratory)
methods, or in other 
words, its' way of how it gathers data and what to do
with this data?

     [Case]
Scientific methods like the subjects they are used to
study are always 
being tested as part of the activity of science.
Methods are chosen and 
abandoned based on reasoned judgments of their
utility... 

----------
     I agree.

     [SA asked previously]
3)  Is science just a labeler, in other words, does
science 'do' 
anything or just identify the 'things' that do?  Does
science show a way to practice life (or any paths in
life), or does science just show how life is
practiced?  Is there a distinction?

     [Case]
...Labeling and classification is only one of the
functions of science but in almost none of its
functions is there anything inherent in science itself
to say what it should do or what is valuable to do. 
These are
the functions of philosophy and religion... 

-------
     I agree.

     [Case]
My point in most of these discussions has never been
to claim that 
science is the only way to see the world.

------
     I figured.  I wouldn't mind Platt and dmb point
out what they've been arguing against with you.

     [Case]
I believe I have been very clear on this point.

-----
     Yes, you have.

     [Case]
However, I have maintained that proposing a
metaphysics, or a philosophy or a religion in
opposition to science is quixotic at best.

------
     Yes, it would be impractical and ungrounding, as
for the latter, unearthy (ungrounding) - perhaps
literally.

      [Case]
Science can and should provide information to inform
our ethical and moral discussions.

------
     Two examples, the atomic bomb and global warming,
scientific information in these two incidences have
spurred ethical and moral discussions.

     [Case]
It is a scientific fact for example that a nuclear
weapon can kill 100s of thousands of people. But it
would be foolish to regard this fact as having no
moral implications. 

------
     I typed the above two examples before reading
this.  So, we are on the same page in this incidence. 
I totally agree.

     [Case]
Platt and several others seem to believe in a
consciousness and purpose that are not tied to
processes occurring here and now in nature.

--------
     Consciousness is here and now.  If they think
this way, then they have ungrounded themselves from
planet earth.  A divide exists in their existence,
perhaps.

     [Case]
They believe our destiny is being determined by a
divine plan or in harmony with some ultimate cosmic
principle or as the result of some Absolute Source or
the unified nature of all things.

-------
     What I like about dynamic quality involved with
quality (with static quality dq just differentiated)
is the no-principle this brings to MoQ.  A cosmic
principle, to me, would seem to mean this cosmos has
an ego, a self, and archetype.  Dynamic quality lets
freedom shine (a reference to Dharmakaya light). 
Dynamic quality is the no-self in any static pattern
for all is quality.

     [Case]
These various views are challenged by efforts to test
and measure and specify. The results of science in
biology and physiology do not square with these views
and so folks vilify the likes of Dawkins who
intentionally sets himself up for such vilification.

-------
     I really don't know Dawkins enough, so I'm not
going to comment upon this.

     [Case]
I think this is the source of resistance to the idea
of emergence, for
example. Which is odd since the MoQ is specifically
about whole levels 
of relationships emerging from lower orders of
relationships. There is
resistance to the inverse of emergence, which is
reduction. The fruits 
of the reductionist program have been stunning. In
fairness several people here are chiefly concerned
about science and reductionism run amuck. They see the
tendency in popular culture to assume that since
things can be taken apart there is no compelling
reason to put them back together in the same way. 

-------
     Your latter suggestion about popular culture is a
view held in popular culture, at least I've run across
it before.  To use reductionism is one thing, to get
stuck with reductionism is another.  I don't think
your stuck on reductionism.  You've brought up
different kinds of scientific inquiries, and one in
particular, that I can't remember, in which you
advocate.

     [Case]
Since we can develop birth control techniques and
mitigate the 
consequences of casual sex then it is ok to have
casual sex. Perhaps from a purely mechanistic point of
view this makes some sort of sense. But science
abandoned a mechanistic world view almost 100 years
ago and has been drifting toward an organic view
since. In an organic view, pregnancy is just one of
many consequences of casual sex. Changing public
standards on the basis of one such consequence leads
to lots of unintended consequences down the road.

------
     ok

     [Case]
But I think the single biggest point I have been
aiming at in many
conversations here is that the "ought" of morality
originates in us. It 
does not derive from divine authority or the
interpretation of mystical
experience. Purpose arises from us, not from the
external world. 

--------
     I'm just sharing this following view, not in an
argumentative sense or missionary, preacher sense.  I
believe in G-d.  I don't believe G-d is just external
or just internal.  Just here.  When people ask me what
G-d is, I just answer them by saying I didn't create
any of this, and G-d is a mystery and I don't know
what G-d is.  G-d is mu and yet, here concretely. 
What G-d is for me has changed since I was younger. 
When I was younger my parents influenced me more as to
what this G-d 'thing' is.  My dad just repeated to me
what his dad said to him, which my grandfather said to
my dad one day, "I know who my G-d is.  Do you know
who your G-d is?"  
     I just said all this to possibly show how I
believe in G-d and yet, I live in freedom and
authority.  An authority, as in science, where what a
rock is in its' elemental and/or particle breakdown is
what the rock is.  The rock holds the authority as to
what a rock is.  Anyways...    

     [Case]
Without a lot of philosophical meandering let me state
it plainly. 
Science shows us this "fact." Life is ubiquitous on
Earth. It thrives in deep sea hot vents, polar ice
sheets and everywhere in between. That it is all
around us, blinds us to the fact that it appears to be
rare elsewhere. If you asked me what our purpose is I
would say it is to be stewards of life here and to
help it be fruitful and multiply elsewhere. Life is
growth. It is the ultimate manifestation of dynamic
quality. Our purpose should be to foster this. But
looking for purpose outside of ourselves is just
passing the buck to some abstraction and shirking our
ultimate responsibility.

-------
     I agree.  I am not limited by your purpose, and
you might not be either.  I do agree stewardship is A
purpose, though, and to pass "the buck to some
abstraction" and not take "ultimate responsibility" is
to unground and separate our morality from who we (I)
are (am).

     [Case]
I don't know if that even addresses what you asked but
that's more or 
less how I see it.

     Excellent.  You went above and beyond what I was
asking, but I'm very glad you did for you've explained
much of what I may have sooner or later asked you. 
Thank you very much.

rainy, rainy, rainy
SA 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097