Sutter:
http://alt.mailarchive.ca/religion.christian/2007-05/3292.html
Sutter is not explicitely endorsing the advance he initially presents;
mechanistically (my preferred flavor of candy), this all must be quite true,
and he serves a flavored treat. It must be brought to light, however, that
the post is to some alt.religion group (he is interested in religion or is
feeding?), and, eventually, i begin to dissent...
"...we would have an impersonal nature which seems to be forced into
preparing for itself, a glimpse at a process it can never realize..."
...and so self-reference sullies the logic here. It is the representation,
the initial auspice of the actor in referencing the process, that is
flawed, for the reference of the actor to himself by himself cannot be
complete. More succinctly, that which chooses cannot legitimately analyze
the choice. It is not that the actor couldn't analyze the choice because
there was no choice, but because the analysis itself could not legitimately
occur.
I think I will go with the good ole' 'we have a random number generator in
our head' hypothesis as far as the subject is concerned. :P
Finally, all of this leads from choice to right and wrong... of course. My
take on right and wrong is a maintenance of mechanism again. We have no
legitimate choice- we are an assemblage of atoms. I attempt an advance on
'good and bad' as per the mathematical disposition (nature) of man- that
which is ordered is good because we are ordered, and that which is chaotic
is bad because we are ordered.
