[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Rosen and bioethics

I would like to add to this that most scientific results can be used for
good or evil depending on our goals and in the mechanistic view of the
world they are necessarily void of any moral content or implications
(even though scientists often take up moral positions separately from
their discoveries). So we are justified in being skeptical that "good"
will prevail from their further discovery or dissemination. It is more
likely to be continued chaos.

But one great thing I seen in RR's work is the potential to reconnect
with some moral possibilities. The traditional way is through genetic
self-interest. That's awfully limited. But the idea of models of
self-function opens the door to shared models, societal models, the
evolution of models, and even the natural selection of models that may
thereby reflect deeper principles of nature on a moral plane. Is
altruism only a reflection of self interest? Or does it have deeper
systemic roots?

JJK

Tim Gwinn wrote:

Dan,

You bring up an interesting topic: the question of the "bioethics"
associated with Rosen's work. I am perhaps not as optimistic as you. For
example, I would not want many technological secrets of our military to be
made public. That would strike me as very bad for many countries and people.

Fabrication, as a technology, would seem to possess the same devastating
potential for disaster. It is kind of a difficult topic to sort out, since
we don't know exactly what, or how detailed, the theory is, as well as the
inevitable practical difficulties and costs in implementing any technology.

Where you say "if his theory touches on the deeply true nature of the
universe, that truth and knowledge could not in the long run lead to bad
things happening for humanity.", I would be worried about whether humanity
would make it to the "long run", or if we would inadvertently cut our
species short with some misstep that runs awry.

Regards,
Tim

P.S. - On the other matter of posts and relevance:
Although Mike's post was in reply to a thread, and well-intentioned, it did
not include anything other than the quotes to give it context or relevance.
In general, I would just ask that a comment indicating the poster's intent
and relevance be included as part of the post. That way, we all know "where
they are coming from". That's all. :)





-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
Fiscus
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 5:40 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words


Tim Gwinn wrote:


Thanks, John. Good point. We do want to keep this list focused


on Rosen and


topics related to Rosen. :)


Tim and John,

I think that post was related and relevant. One quick reason:
Rosen talked about a fear of what might happen if his theory
was used for fabrication, or got into the wrong hands perhaps.
I have thought that this fear may have been unfounded. Part
of my hunch is that if his theory touches on the deeply true
nature of the universe, that truth and knowledge could not in
the long run lead to bad things happening for humanity. To
understand life and even to understand understanding itself
(which his work on modeling and measurement help with) to
me would be only good, and this knowledge could not be used
for evil purposes. Mike's post about a world soul gets at this
more optimistic angle and thus it helped me in my critical
thinking about Rosen. I don't think we should carry forward
that same fear Rosen had, or hold back anything for fear that
others might misuse the knowledge of Rosen complexity. If
it is true, it will be OK to spread this word.

I for one like to discuss Rosen in the broadest possible way.
This does justice to the potential wide reach of his work.

Happy weekend,

Dan



--
© 2003 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved