[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[David M]

Case

I still like levels, but I see more of them than Pirsig does.
Try this, a human being can be intellectual, but take away
language, society and culture and you just have a (biological/
organic animal), shoot the animal and you have a pile
of organic matter, break down the molecules and you
get back to inorganic elements, break these into atoms,
smash these down to particles, etc. But keep the pile
together (of course particles ternd to fly off) and you
still have what is required to make a human being.

What makes the levels then? Organisation. How do
you recognise this? By the different behaviour that
the different levels can exhibit.

Ta
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)


> [Platt]
> I assume you mean that living things are excluded from the "inorganic"
> level.
> Anyway, thanks for the clarification. When I think of carbon chemistry, I
> think of coal. I guess that's why I'm confused.
>
> [Case]
> Sorry, I hit the wrong button a second ago. Anyway I think this issue of
> carbon and organic chemistry points to one of the difficult with
> establishing fixed levels and claiming they are independent from each 
> other.
> Proteins and amino acids are critical to live but are not considered on 
> the
> "inorganic" level. Things get fuzzy at the edges and when you approach the
> line between inorganic and organic clear lines blur.
>
> I think resolution is a better concept than levels.
>
> 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/
>