Section 1 - A path paved with good intentions
Section 2 - The ant colony and the corporation
Section 3 - The growth market in religion
Section 4 - A God you can talk to
This chapter is excellent. Dennett broaches issues of society vis-à-vis individuals. He shows how, classically, an classical individual can become a classical society and rule a society.
Dennett is showing us evils of classical society here and making many of our points for us. Reader we must warn you, however, that Dennett does not tumble to larger issues of quantum society and individuals vis-à-vis classical society or individuals.
We shall move ahead with our own views that Dennett's complaints are borne of his own classical dialectical 'reasoning.' Our view is that if Dennett could 'evolve' his quantum stage closer to these quantum memeos, he could fathom extraordinarily better ways of assuaging these issues:
Now compare those with what Dennett believes and what he is using to mitigate these issues:
Let's make a similar comparison using Paul Pietsch's:
Compare that with what Dennett teaches and adheres:
Dennett commences Section 1 like this:
"Every control system, whether it is an animal nervous system, a plant's system of growth and self-repair, or an engineered artifact such as an airplane-guidance system, is designed to protect something. And that something must include itself! (If it "dies" prematurely, it fails on its mission, whatever it is.) The 'self-interest' that thus defines the evaluation machinery of all control systems can splinter, however, when a control system gets reflective. Our human reflectiveness opens up a rich field of opportunities for us to revise our aims, including our largest purposes. When you can start to think about the pros and cons of joining an existing coalition versus breaking away and trying to start a new one, or about how to deal with the problems of loyalty among your kin, or the need to change the power structure of your social environment, you create avenues by which to escape the default presumptions of your initial design." Pp. 175-176.
Allow us to closely compare classical aspects of Dennett's prose to their quantum hermeneutics, sentence-by-sentence.
"Every control system, whether it is an animal nervous system, a plant's system of growth and self-repair, or an engineered artifact such as an airplane-guidance system, is designed to protect something."
This sentence is really interesting when we examine its potential meanings, perhaps some of which may be unintended by Dennett. Is he equating natural 'control systems' ("...an animal nervous system, a plant's system of growth and self-repair...") with human- 'engineered-designed' 'control systems?' Would we be 'wrong' to say "yes?"
Does Dennett then call those comparatives "designed?" Would we be 'wrong' to say "yes?"
Can we then infer that natural systems are "designed?" Is Dennett arguing for a recent bastioned brouhaha of 'Evangelical righteousists' which they label 'Intelligent Design?' Apparently, we might infer that. We see vividly how religion and science use dialectical design to mandate a concrete reality which they can understand and "control." Classical "design" is classical "control."
A more encompassing query: Can we compare, and on what bases of judgment, natural control systems and human 'engineered' control systems?
In Quantonics we teach that we cann¤t use formal methods of reason to describe nature. Why? Nature is n¤t a mechanical reality. CTMs' bases of judgment are: formal, mechanical, determinate, etc. Nature's approach to evolution, which we refer uncertainly as "quantum" and "QTMs," involves n¤n of those classicisms. Indeed, those classicisms, we have shown in Quantonics, are dialectical self-delusions and illusions.
Classical notions of control are dialectically deluded. Read Bergson's Creative Evolution and his Time and Free Will. See our comparison of cause-effect and affectation, see our QELRs of absolute, canon, cause, certain, change, concrete, determine, duration, effect vis-à-vis affect, extend, induction, isolate (i.e., for control), local, logic, loop, machine, magnitude, measure, model, monitor, repeatability, reproduction, reversibility, verification, etc.
Next, Dennett's parenthetical:
"(If it 'dies' prematurely, it fails on its mission, whatever it is.)"
Just some quick ostensibles...
Classical: EOOO(lives, dies) = dichon(lives, dies). Dies is plural though, isn't it? Ever notice that about English language? It (singular) dies (plural). Hmmm... Are you an "it?" Does you 'dies' or 'die?' But "it" 'dies.' Seldom, which is bothersome to us, do we see plural present participle.
Quantum: BAWAM(livings,dyings) issi quanton(livings,dyings). That's real. Classical linguistics re: one life event-state and one death event-state (see our graphics in our review of Breaking the Spell's Chapter 3) are, from any quantum perspective, just bogus.
What we want you to grasp, quintessentially here, is that Dennett clearly views 'death' as a classical event-state. For a quantum perspective see our April, 2005 TQS News on quanton(livings,dyings).
Classical: EOOO(success, failure) = dichon(success, failure).
Quantum: BAWAM(successings,failurings) quanton(successings,failurings).
Again, quintessentially, quantum success is in quantum failure and quantum failure is in quantum success. Ask Abe Lincoln!
"The 'self-interest' that thus defines the evaluation machinery of all control systems can splinter, however, when a control system gets reflective."
We worry about some potential idiocy underlying that sentence. Is Dennett comparing machine 'self-interest' and machine 'self-reflection' to biosystem 'self-interest' and biosystem 'self-reflection.?' What does he have to assume to do that? Our view is that he has to assume that biosystems are mechanical, and mechanical control systems can be (~act) bioadaptively.
We agree that we can mechanically model biosystems. However, we disagree that any mechanical model can ideally replicate a biosystem.
Dennett's "control system gets reflective" has entirely omniffering hermeneutics, classical mechanistic vis-à-vis quantum biosystemic. Formal models cannot self-evolve. Biosystems naturally self~evolve. We posit: self~evolution as a prerequisite for self~reflection.
So we surmise Dennett's mechanical system "gets reflective" via outside others' incremental design alterations. But that formal, "designed in," self-reflection itself is formal and still and yet incapable of self-evolution.
No engineering team has enough time and resources to ever "design" a self-reflective mechanical control system! Those who believe they can are using CTMs and deluding themselves to do so. See our Darwin's Chip review.
But if Dennett's "can splinter," adheres what we just wrote, we share memes of systemic evolution. We worry though, due his use of "defines the evaluation machinery" since he uses 'define' and 'machine.' We cann¤t 'define' a biosystem! We can only evolve a biosystem. We can only be in processings of evolvings biosystemings. We cann¤t SOON~evolve, physially, any formal machine!
In addition to our AI discussions in Darwin's Chip above, match-case-browser-search these Quantonics' web pages for < AI >, and < AI,>:
What amazes us is that formidable thinkers, preceding Dennett by at least two score years, had already disclaimed Dennett's classical sillyness. Our best example, of which we are currently aware and favor as such, is Errol E. Harris in his The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, Muirhead Library of Philosophy, New York Humanities Press, 1965. (Students of Quantonics: This is an excellent text! If you can acquire a copy for your personal library, do so. Doug - 7Jan2007)
Please permit us to quote Harris' Chapter XIX 'PerceptionI Physiological Theories, Sections 2 and 3:
p. 377: "A model cannot itself, by self-observation, perceive an external, world, nor can it experiment on itself, nor 'understand' anything. It cannot, qua model, apprehend that of which it is a model, much less that it is a model of something other than itself. (Our italicized link.)
p. 380: "The fundamental misconception which leads to disaster and against which we must guard is that the nervous system is an instrument for receiving, processing and transmitting ready-made information from the receptor organs to some internal recipient. [Quantonics' hermeneutic of Harris' fundamental misconception: a dialectically conceived and contrived mechanical trichon(internal, transmittal, external); readers please observe how Quantonics alleviates this radical classicism by coining complementaroception. - Doug - 28Jan007] On this assumption, we shall find, no satisfactory theory of perception ever emerges and a completely different presupposition (already adumbrated in the foregoing chapters) is required. But this is the assumption commonly made by physiologists, and not all psychologists and philosophers are free from it. The application to the problems of perception of contemporary cybernetics, fruitful and suggestive though its theories have been for physiology and psychology, leads to conclusions which are still infected and vitiated by the same fallacy. For cybernetics makes the same assumptions, that peripheral sense organs receive and encode information about external physical objects, much as a telegraphist [objectively] receives and encodes messages passed to him from some extraneous source, that these code messages are transmitted by the nerves, possibly transformed en route according to definite and discoverable rules, and delivered to the brain where they are decoded, read and understood in the form of perception. (Our brackets, bold and color.)
"Cyberneticians invent mechanisms for performing these functions, which they offer as analogues of brain mechanisms and brain processes and suggest how they might be constructed from neural elements. (Our italicization of Harris' use of 'analogue.')
p. 382: "A computing mechanism is an arrangement of parts such that their movement represents certain mathematical relations, which can be made to correspond to similar mathematical relations between external objects. This is true of all calculating machines from the abacus to the slide-rule and from that to electronic computers. The relations of the moving parts of the mechanism may replicate or represent in an analogous way those of the objects the quantitative properties of which are being calculated. But that they are so analogous, that they do represent external objective relations, is a fact which is not included in the computation. Any such reduplication in the brain of the structure of the external situation would be similarly exclusive of this fact (that it is the reduplication of an external situation). If then perception were, or were dependent solely on, such a reduplication, it would necessarily exclude the apprehension of an external object as such. It would, in short, just not be perception."
In Quantonics, Doug has been teaching that humans are quantum~beings. As such they are in quasi real~timings quantum~processings of omnitoring their environs. Humans and other biosystems have qua to be omnitorings their quantum~animate surroundings both consciously and otherwise. That is what Doug intends by quantum~perception. More in a sense of emersos' qualogos Doug intends complementaroception. See our QELR of measure. See our Bandwidth Omnitoring Sensory Perspicacities and Perspicuities. Add blue text updates - Doug - 28Jan2007.
Let's go back to Harris' Chapter XIII 'Mechanism and Teleology,' Section 7: p. 275: "We observed that development was always the elaboration of a diversified unity and never simple accumulation of substance." Harris says evolution trumps classical analyticity, period! In today's quantum culture, we take Harris' "diversified unity" as Mae-wan Ho's quantum "coherent autonomy." Doug - 7Jan2007.
Student adepts shall recognize p. 380's first sentence as an analogue of Bergson's two greatest classical illusions. Harris is saying that "fundamental misconception" is to reify any biological nervous system as an objective dualism of external and internal. Compare that classical misconception with Bohm's holographic reality which demands that all is holographic. Quantonics extends that by saying "We are ihn Iht and Iht issi ihn us." Implication? Classicists' SOM Wall dualistic dichon(external, internal) is an illusion. Dialectic war here is evident: classical excluded-middle versus quantum included~middle.
Doug - 7,28Jan2007.
"Our human reflectiveness opens up a rich field of opportunities for us to revise our aims, including our largest purposes. "
Please note, given our remediation of his prior sentence, that human ræflectihvæness issi n¤t formal mechanical control system reflectiveness! Humans are biosystems, quantum systems, intrinsically n¤t classical control systems.
Dennett's use of 'purposes' here is suspect too. Are purposes plans? We agree that purposes expectantly view futurings and possibilityings, however, do we actually view purposes as animately adaptive? Do we alternately view purposes as determinately objective, MBO, Management By Objective? Do not most people view purposes as latter?
If you agree, then how about this. Is it n¤t transparent purpose is antithetical adaptation? Evolution? Are n¤t purposes' purpose to prevent uncertainty, to disable quantum reality? See? It depends upon whether we are thing-king using CTMs. We should be thinking using QTMs!
"When you can start to think about the pros and cons of joining an existing coalition versus breaking away and trying to start a new one, or about how to deal with the problems of loyalty among your kin, or the need to change the power structure of your social environment, you create avenues by which to escape the default presumptions of your initial design."
We ask you to ponder:
Again, and quite obviously, his entire sentence applies to science as well as religion, does it n¤t?
Aside - Doug - 14Nov2006:
Upon rereading Doug's treatment of this partial quote it became apparent that Doug didn't spend enough time on classical notions vis-à-vis quantum memeos of "joining" vis-à-vis "breaking away."
Several of our studies have shown us how to approach this issue using a new way of thinking. "What studies, Doug?"
- Institution vis-à-vis individual,
- Society vis-à-vis individual,
- Culture vis-à-vis individual, and
- Classical versions of each vis-à-vis quantum versions of each.
Classical institutions, societies, and cultures objectively, quantitatively, mechanically, formally, certainly, and dialectically push-proselytize:
- We above you,
- Herd-thingk, (compare classical vis-à-vis quantum think)
- Common-sense, (see consensus)
- Hive-droning, (socialists tend to view human aggregations socio-objectively as kin of bee hives and ant farms...)
Quantum institutions, societies, and cultures subjectively, qualitatively, emerscently, emerqantly, uncertainly, and rhetorically pull~gravidate:
- Individuals above societies; societies as servants of all individuals as massively plural sovereigns,
- Quantum islandic omniversity,
- Individuals' extraordinary thinkings, (a classical response to this is "everyone can't think differently from everyone else;" but Mae-wan Ho's memeos of heterogeneous quantum islandic coherence make it possible.)
- Quantum~coherent sensings,
- Quantum~stagings' massive omniversityings,
- Holographic everywhere included~middle quantum~associationings,
So from Quantonics complementarospective:
- Classical societies have no means of achieving quantum excellence, and
- Only quantum individuals have qua to achieve quantum excellence.
"How can you say that Doug?"
Classical societies manufacture robotic zombies. A crowd of 'socialites' who all think alike and consensually agree. That molding of 'character' excises individuals' Quality by imposing 'socially universal,' i.e., 'catholic' formality. Victorians were notorious at this, and look at what happened to them. The 'catholic' church is notorious at this and look at what is happening to it. Classical science is notorious at this and notice how its paradigms manifest scientific schizophrenia and intellectual decay. A key observation for any reader at this juncture is how dialectic's either-or mechanicity becomes quantum reality's philosophical beggar. Dialectic begs classical paradice. Dialectic begs inviability of either-or. Dialectic excises and excommunicates individual Quality in favor of a classically social tragedy of commons sense.
Classical societal common sense is antithetical excellence, individual martus aritos. Common sense is vulgar, by Latin 'definition.' Social sense is lowest common denominator, and worse socialists expect it to hold still, to 'not' change.
Excellence is change, adaptability, adeptness of flexibility, quantum recapitulationings (REIMARings) at iamai's now~ings. Dynamic, qualitative, individual excellence is, from any social conspective, heresy. Classical society says "thou shalt not choose," rather, "society will tell you what to choose and when."
But all of that is changing now, at Millennium III's commencement. It is vividly apparent. Individuals are fed up with social electees' tragically-common sense. Many of us see clearly how we can easily be superior to classical social vulgates. And we are. It is time for classical society to "step aside," while individuals reclaim their natural, physial sovereignty over socialists.
How can any classical society be excellent when all of its conned-stituents are common?
Paraphrased, quantum gn¤stic Jesus' said: "How will you be excellent?" Jesus' unsaid: "Not, how will we be excellent?" Quanton(unsaid,said). Our inference is that quantum gn¤stic Jesus is telling us that classical society cann¤t be excellent. Only individuals can be excellent. We agree! Lesson? Quantum societies are excellent when most of their individuals are pursuing quantum martus aritos! You can now fathom how classical societies, via their dialectical beliefs, disable and prevent that in favor of a tragedy of commons-vulgar sense.
Is classical society what you want? Do you want to join classical society? You are n¤t common, are you? You are extraordinary, and n¤ society, n¤ other individual can take that away from you!
But you need n¤t "break away!" You have an opportunity, now, to choose to go quantum~gn¤stic, start your own Chautauqua, your own way, toward your own martus aritos, your own personal, better, evolving, improving self~excellence!
End 14Nov2006 aside.
Read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions; better, read our review of it.
Ask Dennett about science's default presumptions of mass, length, and time. Science 'presumes' they are only measurable. 'Science' presumes they are indefinable! Physics simply will not work without these 'presumptions,' yet they classically are indefinables, folks! Ask Dennett about that...
Classical 'science's' 'presumptions' are 'define-ately' bogus! Dennett probably does not know this, or he wouldn't be offering his dialectically-coarse and obtuse (at least from our quantum perspectives) 'scientific' putations.
There is much to be said here. There isn't time n¤r room.
Later in this section Dennett implies that "good intentions" are kin of "...what is good for the institution..." See just above mid page 177. See title of Section 1.
What is good? Who decides? Is good diversity of goodness? Is there one good, OSFA good? Isn't latter 'social,' 'institutional' good? Good is omniffering for all, so we can say good is omniversity, and omniversal goodness, right? Anyway science has no means of assessing 'good' does it? Science is objective intentionally. Objectivity is quantitative. Good is unquantifiable! Good is qualitative and subjective. Dialectic and thus 'science' have no credentials in any assessments of good. Good may not be modeled. Good may not be axiomatized. Recall this was what Plato's major concern was: truth appeared to be formalizable, but 'good' did not appear to be axiomatic. Aristotle fixed this problem by demoting 'good' as subspecies of 'truth.' Two millennia of 'scholars' bought it. Ugh!
Quantum reality shows us that quality is above quantity, subjectivity is above objectivity, and good is above 'truth.' Dennett and his ilk have yet to fathom these greater quantum memeos. Doug - 20Apr2006.
Let's quantum~simplify it.
Is dialectic 'good' (i.e., quantum~better) for institutions of:
Simple quantum~answer in all cases is "n¤!" Dialectic is quantum~worse for almost every individual and every institution.
Quit determinately expecting semper fi stux. Start learning to be uncertainly expectings, quantum~radical~stochastic~plausibly, semper fluxings.
Doug - 18Apr2006.
Apropos this chapter's title we would ask "What is a Team?" Can we omnistinguish a dialectical, classical team and a quantum~coherent team?
Margaret Atwood asked an even better one, "Can a single ant be said to be alive, in any meaningful sense of the word, or does it only have relevance in terms of its anthill?" Oryx and Crake, p. 371.
Dennett says all we need is dialectical 'reason' to decide. But is that all we need, and is dialectic our 'best' way to 'reason?'
Pirsig told us in Lila, pp. 59-60 of 468 total pages, that science rejects subjective values and thus "...science has no values." We agree! We assume that Pirsig speaks and writes of science as dialectical. 'Scientific logic' is about objective quantity. Religious emotion is about subjective quality! 'Science' is emotion free...
So...we must broach that most insatiable of needed and wanted commodities: faith... (Dennett may not admit this, but even science needs faith. Doug - 19Apr2006.)
Dennett doesn't understand what every spiritual person takes for granted: emotion is more highly evolved and evolving than reason! Quantum~emotion is more valuable and higher Quality than classical reason! Doug - 19Apr2006.
Dialectical 'science' naïvely doesn't 'get' what we just wrote. Again, ideally, science is emotion free! Science wants to reify all via abstract stoppable quantification: scalarbation. Trying to get any emotion out of science is like trying to rut with a frigidaire. As Dennett eloqued in Section 1 of this chapter, "things can get splintered." And worse! See our jet engine metaphor at our Einstein Relativity Problematics. So metaphorically dialectical 'science' is to dialectical 'religion' as a crescent wrench is to a running jet engine. Why does Dennett want to stick his wrench into a running jet engine? He wants to rout 'da Spell. His inquisition reeks of Cathartic Romaninanity. To Dennett religion is science's witch.
You may see similarities in how Quantonics wants to dump dialectic and emerse QTMs in its stead. Who has a better chance? Dennett's problem is smaller. But Dennett is fighting dialectic with dialectic (a vicious circle). Doug is fighting dialectic with quantum thinking metadigmings!
Who will win, win, win? Dennett's approach is dichon(science_win, religion_lose). Catholics' approach was dichon(Catholics_win, Cathars_lose), dichon(Catholics_win, Merovingians_lose), etc. Science's 'Enlightenment' ~defeated 'religious' dichon(win, lose) catholicism and replaced it with dichon(win, lose) 'scientism.' But for Dennett that isn't enough. Religion's carcass remolded, remorphed, back into life, didn't it?
Geertz' "Scientism is mostly just bluff," takes on a whole new semantic now, doesn't it?
Dennett uses this section to describe how some groups succeed and some groups fail at achieving 'social cohesion.' Religion uses FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) to do this, in our opinion. Science too. Religion uses OSFA Death to provoke fear in congregations. But we have shown you elsewhere that death is n¤t classical 'state,' rather quantum 'pr¤cess.' Quanton(livings,dyings), n¤t dichon(death, life).
In small groups John Forbes Nash's Equilibrium Theory works. In larger groups individuals have limited visibility to all other individuals and lose sight of their ( distant others', quantum~n¤nl¤cal ) needs and wants. Katrina and New Orleans are a great example here. Latter shows why 'Globalization' fails and why Clifford Geertz' "disassembly" carries much larger quantum~affectings.
What Quantonics is trying to compare for ( i.e., vis-à-vis ) you here is that quantum reality already offers systemic cohesion. You are in all and all is in you! We are in you and you are in us. Christians are in Muslims and Muslims are in Christians. Mohammed is in us and we are in Mohammed. Jesus is in us and we are in Jesus. Science is in Religion and Religion is in Science. Why cann¤t we all see that? Dialectic's wall! But wouldn't our world be better if we did all see and believe and have faith in that? Doug - 18Apr2006.
What is neat about quantum cohesion is its tentativeness. Classical groups once formed develop cultural immune systems which prevent their sunsettability. Quantum cohesions hold virtually and stindyanically until their affectors select alternatives (analogy: General Motors being affectively, qualitatively deselected as a automobile provider while other global firms are being selected...). Quantum cohesions are quantons(livings,dyings): natural, physial. Classical groups want to deterministically "live in perpetuity." We call it "Stux sux!" Look at USA's government in 2006: "Stux sux!" Doug - 19Apr2006.
We found a sentence in Breaking the Spell on page 181 which illustrates Dennett and his compeers superbly:
"Gaia enthusiasts, if they want to be taken seriously, have to ask, and answer, the question of how the presumed homeostatic systems got designed and installed. Functionalists in the social sciences must assume the same burden."
Isn't that boldened text already answered by 'science?' Quantum~evolution! Is Dennett denying quantum~evolution? What does Dennett mean by "design?"
To us, classical design is Management by Objective!
Anyone who is keeping pace with massive business changes on Earth today understands that MBO is rapidly being selected out and its heir apparent is MBU! Management by Uncertainty! Quantum Uncertainty! See Doug's effort (in response to Ernst & Young's and Financial Times' recent published series) on MBU in our April, 2006 TQS News.
To MBU we have to throw out these antique classical notions. Scan that list and you will see that design is an antique classical notion which we must discard!
On page 182 Dennett shows us that he is still stuck in an antique society over individual 'value' paradigm, "The fitness of the group must trump the individual fitness of its members, and if groups are going to be the ultimate beneficiaries, groups must be the competitors. Selection can go on at several levels at once, however, thanks to competitions at several levels."
Again, we must compare:
And in a larger Pirsigean perspective:
Classical Excluded-Middle of -
Quantum Included~Middle of -
For incredible evolutionary detail showing quantum~emersed (from antique classical) versions of our bullet lists see our Quantum Feuilleton Chautauqua starting October, 2003.
Can you see that Dennett's "The fitness of the group must trump the individual fitness of its members..." is classical and why? It is funda mental classical synthesis of classical objects. It is reification of heterogeneity as homogeneity. It is 'religious' inquisition and imposition of monism upon pluralism! Human groups are pluralities, heterogeneities of individuals. Human groups are n¤t classical monistic, 'the people,' monoliths! Individuals trump groups! How? Individuals are more rapidly evolving than any group they may commingle. By direct observation groups are classically viscous, incapable even of group-thingk. Individuals think. A classical 'group' cann¤t thingk let alone think. Individuals can change (select) their groups almost instantaneously. N¤ group can n¤r should indefinitely survive when individuals are individually selective (This is key to memeos of Dana Zohar's, and hubby Ian's novel descriptions of Quantum Society. Doug - 20Apr2006.). There will always be n¤vel groups emerscing which are better than previous groups (they perpetually become better by quantum~evolvings). Too, groups do not, cannot select individuals. Group selection and retention of individuals can only be coercive. (Classical view is that groups do select individuals.) Mafia is a good example of latter. MS gangs too! Notice how radical Islam wants to "strike their necks" of Muslims who convert to nonIslamic 'religions.' Individuals select groups. (A more highly evolved quantum view.)
We must understand that classical notions of 'group' are classical social patterns of 'value.' They are often antithetical individual patterns of Value. But individuals are evolutionarily above groups as we have shown. Society hates this memeo! Yet it is happening as we write. How does quantum society deal with this? First it, just like individuals, must respect individuals. Then a whole list of changes follow, including: understanding and adopting a new Value hierarchy, understanding how quantum uncertainty omniscopically reigns all reality, evolution of societal means to adapt well and rapidly (almost as quickly as individuals), willingness of societal groups to ontically cycle as quantons(livings,dyings), etc.
From any quantum perspective individual freedom always trumps classical group, always trumps classical Demos will! To allow classical group will to trump individual freedom and individual will is to deny individuals their rights. Doug - 20Apr2006.
Dennett, et al., will ask "How do we maintain order?" Good question, though it's classical. Classical order and quantum ¤hrdær are massively omniffering one another. Classical 'order' demands absolute 'state.' Quantum ¤hrdær demands absolute 'change.' Again, we return to Mae-wan Ho's quantum(cohesion,autonomy). As she writes, paraphrased, "Most sociologists see that quanton as a paradox." To classical minds, it is. To quantum stages it is QICheadedness. Compare antique DIQheadedness.
It may be apparent by now that Dennett's ant colony and corporation are viewed by classical 'scientists' and 'philosophers' of his ilk as classical 'groups.'
Ditto their versions of 'religions' and 'sciences.'
Doug - 20Apr2006.
Dennett offers some superb quotes here. One we particularly like by H. L. Mencken, "H. L. Mencken once opined: 'The only really respectable Protestants are the Fundamentalists. Unfortunately, they are also palpable idiots.' Many share that opinion, especially in academia,.."
We agree, but we hope we have shown you that Dennett's own 'scientific fundamentalism' is just as idiotic as his and Mencken's assessment of 'religion.'
Our bottom lines:
Dump classical religion. Dump classical science. Classical science, due dialectic, is just as rational as classical religion. Problem is, quantum reality is n¤t dialectically 'rational.'
Doug - 20Apr2006.
Our bottom lines:
Dump classical religion. Dump classical science. Classical science, due dialectic, is just as rational as classical religion. Problem is, quantum reality is n¤t dialectically 'rational.'
Doug - 20Apr2006.
Thank you for reading,