[MD] The Trouble With Wilber

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>:

> [Platt]
> Wilber uses the metaphor of Flatland to describe the shortcomings of science
> which deals with surfaces all the way down -- all span and no depth. For
> science all is particulate, right down to quantum particles which exist in
> spooky "potentialities." Thought on which science depends is not, of course,
> 
> particulate -- a fact blithely ignored. Why? Because science hasn't a clue
> as to how thought emerges from a lump of meat.  
> 
> [Krimel]
> Odd then that the emergent hierarchy Pirsig comes up with follows a clearly
> scientific path of development from the inorganic to the intellectual. 

So, science is on a path now with a goal somewhere ahead? Or is it a path
to nowhere? An while you're at it, please identify the force behind the 
"development." Atomic, magnetic, gravity? What?

> Science does tell us how thought arises from a lump of meat. You just don't
> like the answers because they don't tell you why.

No, I don't like the answers because they make no sense. Thought arises from
the complexity of neural synapses? Yeah, right.



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/