[MD] Science and the MOQ

[David M]

 [Krimel]
> Recognizing that the inorganic level is qualitatively different than the
> biological level took centuries to work out. Revert to primitive thought
> patterns if you will but I think, therefore I'll pass.
>

DM: But Krim, this notion of what makes the inorganic different from
the organic is entirely a human made distinction like any other, it is
derived from human understandings of necessity, necessities we
know through our conscious experience. It's is all anthropomorphic
whether it is projected animism of living patterns or our projected
inanimism on what we designate as non-living. Sure this is a useful
distinction, but whether it tells us something about what it is like
to be a rock or a plant or a fish is all pretty dubious. My claim is that
you are being more anthropomorphic than me in thinking this
distinction is unquestionable.


> [Krimel]
> I admit that all sorts of weird ass things are 'possible' even in your
> extreme and outlandish sense of the terms. The earth could be the breeding
> grounds for Von Danekin's Chariot's of the Gods. It's possible that the 
> CIA
> has mind control satellites controlling our thoughts. We could be brains 
> in
> vats. We could be sitting here negating the Hell out of Ham's absolute
> essence.
>
> Possibilities like these make entertaining fantasy but until they approach
> actuality; until they produce some tangible reason to be taken seriously 
> as
> possibility I see no reason to waste time on them as anything more than
> amusements.

DM: See, you can't escape my point. We are very concerned about 
possibilities,
which ones are remote, which ones are close to becoming actual. We have to
see our freedomand our future in the context of all imaginable 
possibilities, we
have to grade them, their desirability, their ability to be realised, their 
near
impossibility,it is the context of everything we think and do.

>> [Krimel]
>> Even with direct verbal reports from others there are
>> problems of lying or people simply being wrong about their own
>> motivations.
>> Trying to apply this back onto inanimate or lower level biological
>> critters is just foolishness.

DM: It's a way of looking at things. We should consider it, what it might
offer and mean,even if it is not our everyday normal way of thinking.
Only when we see that all our assumptions are choices we've made do we
become truly reflective and conscious.


>
> DM: DO we have a choice? The only reason we can project the notion
> of inanimate actions onto certain processes is because they are so
> static and consistent,but what does this prove. I always go for chocolate
> over vanilla milkshake but does that prove I am inanimate and driven
> by laws? Maybe...

 (did you see this maybe?)

.... a consistent action only proves that something is being
> valued as always a good quality action.



>
> [Krimel]
> Yes we do have a choice and to the extent that you always choose chocolate
> over vanilla your behavior is lawful. There are any number of biological
> laws that can describe within very close limits how individuals and groups
> of individuals will act. Marketing types live for this. Freedom is largely 
> a
> matter of ignoring the lack of options.


>
> DM:I agree that it offers a challenge that itmay or may not be able to
> respond to, it is not certain what will result. The term post-secularism
> is becoming a bit of a new fashion you know.
>
> [Krimel]
> If by 'post-secularism' you mean religious fundamentalism I see hopeful
> signs of its disintegration. I look forward to post-usingpostasaprefixism.

DM: Post-secularism has nothing to do with fundamentalism but it does
suggest that there is no way to demonstrate the death of god, that god
talk reflects different values that can be rationally discussed. Of course,
many of us would not be interested in such talk but that gives us no
right to slap a ban on it. This may make more sense in the European
secular context than the US one. In the UK many religious people
feel very excluded by the secularism of the universities. This seems
wrong to me, as someone with no religious convictions.

.
>
> [Krimel]
> When folks in the pews begin to see that Shakespeare, Mozart, John Lennon,
> the Wachowski and Cohn Brothers were divinely inspired, yes that will be 
> an
> uncloudy day.

DM: That what we should aim for.

> DM: I think Dawkins is saying 'put up' in my terms or shut up. They
> certainly do neither and why should they? But equally whilst I welcome
> all to the conversation  and debate I say that the no one gets to rule
> out any forms of questioning or criticism as invalid due to some
> mystical groundless authority either divine or scientistic.
>
> [Krimel]
> I think that uncloudy day will come when people recognize that inspiration
> fuels both of Bohr's poles, clarity and precision. Mythology gives clarity
> Science provides precision. The old mythology loses focus when the clarity
> it offers does not sync with the precision science yields. New myths and
> reinterpretation of old myth can restore the balance but clinging to the 
> old
> and resisting new inspiration just breeds your culture wars and in the end
> there can be only one.

DM One what?