[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[David M]

> Platt and several others seem to believe in a consciousness and purpose 
> that
> are not tied to processes occuring here and now in nature. 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. 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.


Hi Case

I don't know, I think you need to make your mind up, either science
is good for doing certain sorts of things and leaves the other stuff
to philosophy, religion or whatever, or not, which is it? Sure
our comprehension of meaning, purpose, human experience
are challenged by what science has to tell us, but these sort of
ideas are not ruled impossible by science,science can't make
decisive claims about these areas of speculation and complex
areas of experience, values and life. Problem is for the enlightenment
is that religion and metaphysics can push back and change and
put forward their ideas in ways that can fit the new knowledge
of science, you may not like it, and I understand why, but science's
authority is limited by what it can do and still claim to be science,
this is the reality of the limits and on-going openness of our knowledge
and its seemingly endless extension. Despite your desire for science
to give you more certainty than it can, you really know this.
I think, as the MOQ suggests, we need to get honest about where
we are really arguing about values rather than facts, and even the
facts are up for on-going re-e-valuation.

David M

>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 don't know if that even addresses what you asked but that's more or less
> how I see it.
>
> But I could be wrong.
>
> Case
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>