[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[David M]

Yes and the excellent John Dupre was on it too,
author of the Disorder of Things.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect


> Platt et al,
>
> The most recent BBC "In Our Time" is about Microbes and Microbiology
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml
>
> Covers many of the points being debated here about post-Darwinian
> evolution mechanisms now (and past) in microbes of all kinds. Worth a
> listen.
>
> Ian
>
> On 3/8/07, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
>> Arlo:
>>
>> > [Platt]
>> > Since evolution is "impossible to observe" it does seem to be outside
>> > science which, if I'm not mistaken, requires observation to establish 
>> > the
>> > validity of it's theories.
>> >
>> > [Arlo]
>> > Of course, we never "observe" quarks either, but our science posits 
>> > that
>> > they are real. What we observe is small, micro-evolutionary movement 
>> > that
>> > demonstrates that pattern adapt and change as they move towards
>> > "betterness". We can take snapshots of different moments in history and
>> > propose that changes between two and attributable to the same natural
>> > processes that we are able to observe.
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, quarks are a "theoretical construct." Darwinian
>> evolution appears to be in the same category.
>>
>> > For example, consider geological evolution. No one was there to 
>> > "observe"
>> > the entirety of the process that moved our earth from swirling mass of 
>> > gas
>> > and particles to the inter-glacial world we see around us. We infer (or
>> > abduct, if you will) that there was a process of change, a natural 
>> > process,
>> > that was the cause of this transition. But, since at any given point in 
>> > the
>> > timeline it would only ever be possible to view this retrospectively, 
>> > at
>> > each moment, including our own, it "appears" evolution has stopped. 
>> > But, as
>> > I've said, the same inference that allows us to rest comfortably 
>> > knowing
>> > the sun will rise tomorrow guides us to see that this process has not
>> > stopped, it just always appears to be so from any temporal vantage 
>> > point.
>> >
>> > If you think that "science" is without inference, hypothetical 
>> > induction or
>> > abduction, you take a limited view of science that is largely 
>> > incorrect.
>> >
>> > [Platt]
>> > Is Conant's description of science wrong? Or do we make an exception 
>> > for
>> > evolution when we bill it as a 'scientific" theory?
>> >
>> > [Arlo]
>> > I'm not familiar with Conant, or what he may or may not have meant by 
>> > what
>> > he said, but given the way you apply it here, Conant would say that 
>> > Quantum
>> > Theory lies outside science. A strange this to say.
>>
>> >From Wikipedia:"James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 - February 11, 1978)
>> was a chemist, educational administrator, and government official. He was
>> born in Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1893 and graduated from the Roxbury
>> Latin School in Boston in 1910. He went on to study chemistry at Harvard
>> (B.A., 1914; Ph.D., 1917. As a Harvard professor, he worked on both
>> physical and organic chemistry. The American Chemical Society honored him
>> with its highest prize, the Priestley Medal, in 1944. In 1933, Conant
>> accepted an appointment as the President of Harvard University, a post he
>> held until 1953. Between 1941 and 1946, he also served as chairman of the
>> National Defense Research Committee; from that position he played a key
>> role, along with his close friend Vannevar Bush, in ramping up the
>> Manhattan Project which developed the first nuclear weapons. After World
>> War II he was an advisor to both the National Science Foundation and the
>> Atomic Energy Commission."
>>
>> I think he qualifies as an expert in describing science's methodology. As
>> for quantum theory, I believe there have many observations of particle
>> traces on oscilloscopes to confirm the theory, not to mention the utility
>> of the theory in computer science. But, I defer to Magnus and others on
>> observable aspects of quantum theory.
>>
>> > [Platt]
>> > Well, with all due respect to you and Mr. Pirsig, I consider his MOQ to 
>> > be
>> > a macro-level evolutionary change in the intellectual level, so much so 
>> > in
>> > fact that the intellectual level dominated by SOM is barely 
>> > recognizable
>> > from the MOQ perspective.
>> >
>> > [Arlo]
>> > I'm sure the Japanese, who Pirsig informs us don't see the fuss we 
>> > make,
>> > because they've gotten this all along, are happy to know that _WE_ have
>> > brought about evolutionary change to the intellectual level.
>>
>> Easy for the Japanese to say when  the evidence since WW II points to
>> their adoption fo Western SOM metaphysics. Looks to me like they
>> are devolving. In any case, the Japanese idea of the MOQ is nicely
>> described by Pirsig in Lila. "Japanese Zen is attached to social
>> discipline so meticulous they make the Puritans look almost degenerate."
>> In view of your opinion of religious fundamentalists, I guess this is not
>> your idea of the MOQ in action.
>>
>> Platt
>>
>> 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/
>>
> 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/
>