[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[David M]

Case

I like to think of metaphysics as being talk that does not
realise it is about describing our experience. It seeks the
words and concepts to try and make some sense of our
experience. The fact all this speculation has had something
useful to say about our experience, but most have captured
little more than a certain aspect of our rich experience
and possible ways to understand how this experience is possible.

Science, pretty much, describes bits of experience, measures it,
and fits it into formulas that can be used to make very exact
descriptions. It's great but, I'm afraid, that's not enough and we have
further questions to ask and try to answer. Natural history is
not like this and is made rather unrealistically simple when we talk
about 'fitness' for survival because this tells us little about the great
variety of ways to survive and do alot more than just survive
and be fit. I am very unfit for example but survive and do all
kinds of weird extra stuff.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)


> [Ham]
> Personally, I dislike comparing Philosophy to Science because the
> aims and methods are different in each case, and crossing from one
> discipline to the other tends to disparage the other (e.g., Richard 
> Dawkins
> debunking religion; Karl Popper on falsification of scientific theory).
> Inasmuch as Science is not intrinsically opposed to Philosophy, nor is
> Philosophy opposed to Science, I see no need for this kind of debate.
>
> [Case]
> I would be interested in hearing your objections to Popper.
>
> [Ham]
> My answer would have been somewhat different: Science is about the "what"
> and "how" of experiential reality.  Philosophy is about the "what" and 
> "why"
> of ultimate reality.  Morality is about what man's life "could be".
> However, I agree that Science can "inform" morality, and that the
> pronouncements of Science are continually being tested.
>
> [Case]
> Good philosophy picks up where science leaves off and attempts to explain
> the "why" of the "what" science has revealed. Philosophy aimed solely at
> seeking "ultimate reality" unaided by science it just knocking about in 
> the
> dark.
>
> [Ham]
> If anybody believes "our destiny is being determined by a
> divine plan or in harmony with some ultimate cosmic principle," it's the
> author of the MoQ, whose theory is that morality is innate in the universe
> and is moving us toward betterness.
>
> [Case]
> I agree and have complained bitterly about this.
>
> [Ham]
> I can't speak for Platt and "the
> others", but I happen to believe that we live as free creatures in an 
> amoral
> universe and that our destiny is largely what we make of it.  Such a 
> belief
> does not have to be "tested, measured and specified"; it can be observed 
> in
> the history of man's intellectual, cultural, medical, and technological
> advancement.
>
> [Case]
> I would suggest that your notion of freedom and autonomy is overrated. Our
> beliefs and behaviors are shaped by the natural world around us and the
> communities that we live in. Freedom is constrained by so many external
> variables outside of our control that a statement like "our destiny is
> largely what we make of it" is rendered either trite or as psycho-babble. 
> I
> would further suggest that our history IS the process by which our beliefs
> have been tested.
>
> [Ham]
> Since I don't really understand your concept of "levels of relationships
> emerging from lower orders of relationships" or what you mean by "the
> inverse of emergence," I'll opt to ignore that statement.
>
> [Case]
> Emergence has been discussed here at length. Polanyi mentions the example 
> of
> the rules of chess. They are enabled by but can not be predicted by or
> reduced to the laws of physics and biology. The activities of Life emerge
> from the laws of physics but at some point begin to play by their own 
> rules.
> This is the point Pirsig makes in constructing his levels.
>
> I am suggesting that emergence and reduction are opposite sides of the 
> same
> coin.
>
> [Ham}
> By "elsewhere" do you mean establishing life on Mars or in outer space?
> Otherwise, you are expressing the law of Nature which is that all life 
> seeks
> to survive and flourish.
>
> [Case]
> I always thought that space colonies or the Moon would be great places to
> start. But it seems we would rather let such habitats as we have built 
> fall
> from the sky while we resume the task of thinning the herd through 
> pointless
> conflicts.
>
> [Ham]
> It would appear that you have no use for metaphysical concepts and have
> concluded that finite life and its replication is the sole purpose of
> existence.  That is your prerogative as a free individual, of course.  As
> "the ultimate manifestation of dynamic quality," however, it doesn't 
> measure
> up to my idea of an enlightened personal philosophy.
>
> [Case]
> I have little use for metaphysical concepts that are rooted in shear
> speculation. One of the most difficult things about science is its
> insistence that when we ask a question, we must be able to propose a way 
> of
> verifying any answer we give it. This requires discipline but to do
> otherwise is simply spinning tall tales. The tales maybe elegant, 
> logically
> consistent, even beautiful, but if they have no consequences, make no
> predications, and can never be tested in any way, then tall tales is all
> they are.
>
> For example when you speak of finite life as though that could possibly be
> transcended, you are spinning tales. When you speak of a perspective 
> outside
> of space/time without regard to what physics and mathematics tell us about
> space/time, the tales you spin lose elegance, logical meaning and aren't
> even going to look all that good at closing time.
>
> 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/
>