[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Platt Holden]

> > [Krimel]
> > I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are
> attempting
> > to
> > read choice and intention into even the inorganic level. I don't see
> how
> > this differs from theology in the least. Platt sneers a chance but at
> > least
> > acknowledges some kind of vague theological convictions. Dave, just
> > pretends
> > that whatever it is he is saying, it is not theology. 
> 
> [Platt]
> Pirsig: "I think the answer (Are atoms aware?) is that inorganic objects
> experience events but do not react to them biologically socially or 
> intellectually.  They react to these experiences inorganically, according
> to the laws of physics." (LC, 30)
> 
> Guess that makes Pirsig a theologian. Yeah, right. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> No, but it makes his use of the term "preference" indistinguishable from
> "probability" expect in so far as it allows you free reign to confuse
> the
> meaning between levels.

So you agree that atoms experience?