[MD] Social level for humans only

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Hi Krimel, to be honest, it sounds like Fossilism to me
               return to chaos as solution to build your model from scratch,
this is throwing sand in the bull's eye's
               think i was reading this example somewere.

666-),dont be shy to react..

2010/8/28 Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com>

> [Platt]
> To those with an open mind who would like to learn more about what DMB is
> talking about I recommend an article by Charles Birch entitled, "Why I
> Became a Panexperientialist" at:
>
> [Krimel]
> Truth is I didn't get much farther than the first few sentence when I found
> this:
>
> "From my undergraduate years through my post-graduate years I was
> surrounded
> by materialists. These were scientists whose thought was dominated by the
> Newtonian worldview."
>
> There is really no need to go on. Almost all of the ranting a raving that
> goes one about this, especially from you, dmb, Ham and the like is ranting
> about the Newtonian world view.
>
> Science has moved well beyond this and given those who care to look, a
> breathtaking picture of probabilistic interaction of determinism without
> prediction. Newton's causal billiard balls ought to be long gone but they
> are not. They lingers as the unquestioned assumptions of most people
> because
> they apply well to our everyday interactions in the same way Euclidian
> geometry works for carpenters. Because of their enormous heuristic value
> most people rarely see cause to go farther.
>
> But the Newtonian world view is unsatisfactory. When it undergirds your
> system of beliefs, it produces the feeling of dissatisfaction Birch talks
> about.  Personally I don't think a retreat into superstition, animism,
> panpsychic supernaturalism is the road out of the mess. I think instead the
> concepts derived from systems, theory, probabilistic models, chaos and the
> many things I have talked about over the past five years do a much better
> job, are more comprehensive, aesthetically beautiful, emotionally
> satisfying
> and conform more comfortably immediate experience. The MoQ as you, dmb and
> AWGI is nothing more than this retreat into the Mythos.
>
> I believe the MoQ shows us a better way: Out of a cacophony of sensory
> clatter (Quality) and we detect patterns of relative certainty (SQ) against
> a background of the uncertainty (DQ). We produce meaning from the
> meaningless.
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser