To: Platt, Jonathan and Elephant From: Rog ROGER ARE ATOMS AWARE? and DOES THE MOQ REQUIRE THE ANSWER TO BE "YES" TO HANG TOGETHER AS A VIABLE EXPLANATION OF REALITY? JONATHAN: Roger, I appreciate your focusing back to the question. We clearly agree in so many areas, and yet I still don't fully understand if and how we have a disagreement here over "atomic awareness". Let me split your question: 1. Is atomic awareness necessary to explain reality? NO - there are plenty of alternative metaphysical systems. 2. Is the idea of atomic awareness consistent with the MoQ? YES - that's my opinion (and Platt's). Roger? Elephant? 3. Is the idea of atomic awareness NECESSARY for the MoQ? I believe YES, but we each seem to have our own personal ways of understanding it. Do we need an "authoritative" answer from RMP? ROGER: My Webster's 9th contains the following synonyms for AWARE: "cognizant, conscious, sensible, alive, awake, and having knowledge of something." Webster's continues on: "Aware implies vigilence in observing or alertness in drawing inferences from what one experiences." So, are atoms cognizant, conscious, alive, awake or sensible? Do they draw inferences from their experiences? So I answer that it is not necessary for the MOQ. In addition, it is not consistent with the MOQ, other than as an overextended metaphor for quality. (and I do acknowledge that Pirsig the novelist takes occasional poetic license.) JONATHAN: Let me explain. I think that the following words are all linked: RESPONSIVE-SENSITIVE-EVALUATING-AWARE-SENTIENT-CONSCIOUS-INTELLIGENT They may carry additional semantic baggage, but they share VALUE as common element. ROGER: I am fine with your chain, and with Maggie's chart (I miss Maggie too and hope she rejoins us soon). But let me offer a tongue-in-cheek link of my own: PERFORMERS - ACTORS - COMEDIANS - WOODY ALLEN But all performers are not "Woody Allens" are they? Don't bother answering, as I am being pointlessly argumentative and I recognize your chain involves higher levels evolving out of lower levels, and mine just goes from the general to the specific. (On the other hand, I could draw out a chain of protozoa to humans, but that doesn't make it acceptable to call protozoa proto-humans does it? ) Let me just add that I understand the continuum, and I would even go as far as to say that bears are more aware than viruses, which are more aware than rocks. But in keeping with Diana's Texan theme "thars a mighty big spread 'tween them thar ...podner." By the time you get to rocks, the "A" word doesn't fit at all. It adds no value to box the MOQ into a corner requiring sentient quarks and aware photons. We all agree on the idea of value chains of emergent complexity and dynamic versatility, but let's not make the MOQ absurd. Rog MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
