You know, I have say how much I appreciate these challenges and interchanges. You all force me to examine and re-examine my assumptions, and to defend the positions I have taken on some issues. I certainly hope those of you who are taking part in this interchange derive as much benefit, and pleasure, as I do. And I thank you for the time you take in your responses.
That being said, I see something completely different from the Dawkins passage than either Gich or Grant has. It may not be what Dawkins entirely meant (I cannot vouch for that), but it serves to illustrate my position well.
Let us leave the question of the ebb and flow of energy and matter for the moment, and work our way there by analogy. Music is very dear to me, and I believe serves as a good illustration of my point. Music is made up of certain discreet notes, of differing lengths and tone. Instrumentation provides additional nuances of voice and colour. Moreover, the interconnection between notes can be complex, from the pointed staccato to the lazy glissando. The combination of many notes can constitute one of several chords, which lend a resonance and richness to the sound. Finally all of these can be considered and combined to create a unique composition. I was trying this concept out on my daughter tonight, and she immediately understood the application of the analogy. "Each of us are symphonies!"
Or let us once again consider the eddy in the stream. The eddy is not a separate thing. It is a combination of the flow of water, the effect of gravity and of the stream bed, and several other factors. The eddy may stay in place for moments, or persist for years. Yet the water that makes up that eddy is never the same, from moment to moment.
And so to return to part of the quote: "Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place .... Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made."
We seem to have got hung up on equating ourselves with the 'stuff', which Dawkins clearly states we are not. So what is 'us'? What is the person, this ephemeral locus of thought and choice? I believe there is a clue in the quote (whether it is intentional or not, I cannot say).
It is not what the matters 'is' that is the focus, but what the matter 'does'. It flows, it comes together and pools for a time. Like the symphony, it is not the notes, but the way, the pattern, in which those notes are interrelated. It is the flow of the melody from chord to chord. Like the eddy, it isn't the water, but the combination of forces, environment and the very nature of water itself that bring the eddy into being.
We are not merely a pile of atoms. We are a dance, a complex web of energies and matter, a unique comic symphonic movement, brought together for a short time. The atoms change, but the pattern they form holds, if only for a moment, cosmically speaking. Something endures, something that is uniquely you, the melody of your thoughts, the harmony or discordance of your choices, all of these things remains as the energy and matter of the cosmos flow through you, and around you and are within you.
I like this quote from Carl Sagan, which summarizes my perseptive beautifully. "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it. But the way those atoms are put together."
Does this mean that I believe that the universe is entirely deterministic (I may not be using the correct philosophical term here)? If we use that term to mean void of the capacity for choice, I don't think so. We all act as if our actions are self-guided, and we certainly hold others accountable for their actions. So either we are deluded by a mechanistic universe to believe in the illusion of choice, or there is some spiritual or super-natural forces guiding some or all of the matter in the cosmos.
Or the capacity for choice is a property of the universe. I believe I said this before, but my son, having studied Stoicism briefly in university as part of a philosophical survey course, once asked me if I believed the universe was conscious. I replied that I know that 'part' of it was, and that therefore the capacity for consciousness is part of the makeup of the cosmos. In the same way, I see nothing to prevent the power for choice to be part of a corporeal universe. We may not understand the mechanism of it, but that it exists is beyond question for most people. And where there is choice, there the Stoic heg. can have reign.
I see no reason to imposed additional external layers of influence, either as an organizing or animating principle, if one accepts that these properties are part of universe we live it. It is self organizing as well as self-destructive. The dance is built into the fabric of the cosmos. Things come together, things flow apart.
It is now 2 AM, and I have to work in the morning, so I am signing off for now.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Grant Sterling
wrote:
I assumed my comments here would be read in the
context of the Dawkins passage, where he holds that
"I" did not really exist during the events that I
now remember, because the atoms that compose my body now
aren't the ones that composed it then.
If I am the pile of atoms that make up my body,
and the pile changes composition with every instant,
then there is no enduring personal identity, and
no personal nature.
--
Cheers,
Michel
"If one accomplishes some good
though with toil,
the toil passes,
but the good remains;
if one does something dishonorable
with pleasure,
the pleasure passes,
but the dishonor remains."
Musonius Rufus
