TO: Marco, Platt, Jonathan and Elephant
From: Rog
MARCO:
(I think there are no doubts about my position... I'm on Platt's an
Jonathan's side.... )
Maybe we just need a different dictionary. Do we really need the
"awareness" concept?
I could be wrong, but IMO such a term has (had?) another meaning in a
SOMish vision of the world: the proof of a certain degree of awareness
was the capability of being independent of a strict causation principle.
ROG:
Just to clarify, to my knowledge nobody has argued the replacement of VALUE
for CAUSATION. This is a central tenet of the MOQ, and is one that I agree
with. My argument has been that it is absurd to say that subatomic patterns
are AWARE. I do not see 'awareness' as a requirement to escape the 'strict
causation principle'. Again, to my way of thinking, if you are saying that
neutrinos are aware, according to my dictionary you are saying they are
"cognizant, conscious, sensible, alive, awake, and having knowledge of
something, and that they can draw inferences from their experiences."
Now, is this indeed what you mean? Or do you have some special MOQ
definition of awareness that the three of you decided to create out of the
blue? i/e. awareness now means "being independent of a strict causation
principle." If this is what the term now means, then sign me on as agreeing
with you conceptually, though not necessarily endorsing your methodology.
MARCO:
As long as the the nature of matter was seemingly in accordance to the
assumption that there's always an external cause for its behavior, no
problem, matter was not aware. But now we know it's not like that:
causation is a platypus. Using our "old" dictionaries, we MUST say that
electrons "CHOOSE" their behavior. We MUST say that they are "AWARE".
Then, immediately, we MUST add that, in a MOQ, awareness has a different
meaning, or they will think we are mad animists.
ROG:
If we must say so, then did Pirsig have to say so too? Does Pirsig say so?
(that they are aware, not that they "prefer" with italics around the term.)
And if Pirsig didn't ever say so, then why is it we "must say" so? And if we
must redefine awareness, exactly how is it we want to redefine it? Where
will we keep this list of new definitions?
MARCO:
Pirsig, about the "Free Will vs. Detrminism" controversy, writes: "In
the MOQ this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent that one's behavior
is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to
the extent that one follows DQ, which is undefinable, one's behavior is
free".
So, do atoms follow DQ? To a certain extent, YES. So, they have a free
will? YES.... So, they are aware? YES, if we just make it clear that
awareness and free will are, simply, the possibility to be dynamic, and
that this principle is valid at all levels.
ROG:
Ah, so 'awareness' is now redefined as the 'possibility to be dynamic'. If
this is the case, then I guess I agree. Of course it isn't the case, except
in a very silly and arbitrary way.
PLATT:
Elephant and Roger side step the question.....Roger allows as how viruses
might be aware, but not rocks, thereby
shifting the subject from atoms to rocks which are not comparable.
(Likewise changing the thread to “ Atomic Absurdity” attempts to
bypass the issue by ridicule.)
ROG:
I am not trying to sidestep the issue. I have taken the issue head on and
listed my dictionariy definition of awareness. Please feel free to respond in
kind and tell me which parts of Webster's definition you think apply to
subatomic patterns, and which parts don't. Then based upon your answer, let
me know if aware atoms doesn't seem pretty absurd to you.
BTW, you can substitute subatomic particle for the word rock. And the
absurdity of applying a term that implies cognizant, living inference-drawers
to subatomic processes has been my central argument. I suggest you are
overextending a perfectly good word to no benefit.
PLATT:
I have no problem attributing awareness to atoms, quarks and photons
since they act like I and other “experiencing entities” do, that is,
independently of mechanistic cause and effect. As Bertrand Russell
said, “So far as quantum theory can say at present, atoms might as
well be possessed of free will, limited however to one of several
possible choices."
ROG:
I have no argument with Mr Russell or with your suggestion that atoms act
independently of mechanistic determinism. Never have, never will. This is
not proof that atoms are aware using the definition that I have offered.
PLATT:
>From Pirsig: “The chemistry of life is the chemistry of carbon. What
distinguishes all the species of plants and animals is, in the final
analysis, differences in the way carbon atoms choose to bond.” (Lila,
Chap. 11)
Pirsig could have said simply, “the way carbon atoms bond.” But he
added the words, “choose to ” and by doing so, made clear the chasm
between the Metaphysics of Quality and the Metaphysics of Subjects
and Objects where everything just “emerged” inexplicably from “rocks.”
ROG:
Ah, there it is, the hint that since I don't buy your argument that I must be
the dreaded representative of SOM. Since you are going there let me counter
that I suspect this need to redefine the MOQ around sentient atoms is itself
just the vestages of SOM thinking. You have to redefine his metaphysics away
from value patterns and toward subjective, discrete entities.
Can I ask the three of you to consider that there are other explanations to
subatomic or molecular "preference" other than this convoluted attempt to
assign awareness, cognizance and inference-drawing ability to these patterns?
I would be happy to discuss these if you all are still open to the
discussion. Can I also ask that we avoid arguments where we redefine the
terms and don't tell each other in advance what the new definition is.
(again, if Pirsig redefined awareness somewhere and I missed it, just point
it out to me and I will apologize in advance for my ignorance)
In summary,
I agree with Maggie and Jonathan's continuum (which interestingly does not
even hint that inorganic patterns are aware, in fact it pretty much paints a
picture of awareness as a property belonging in the higher level.)
I agree that subatomic particles are not mechanistic
I have given a definition of aware and patiently await everyone else to tell
me which part it they really mean when they extend it to quarks and gluons.
Finally, I suggest that assigning awareness to a subatomic value pattern is a
step away from the metaphysics of quality and back to a convoluted and absurd
version of subject/objectism.
So, my challenge to Jonathan, Marco and Platt is to:
1) quit arbitrarily redefining awareness to mean "the ability to be
non-mechanistic and dynamic.". If you have to do so, at least tell people
how and why you redefine a perfectly good word when others could have
sufficed (ie "atoms are dynamic" or "atoms are non-mechanistic")
2) let me know exactly which parts of the Webster definition of this word you
all throw around you believe actually applies to sub-atomic patterns
3) let me know if you have some logical proof that non-mechanistic implies
awareness (as conventionally defined)
Rog
PS -- I suspect that Marco, Jonathan and I have no true argument at all, once
we clarify what we are saying. I am not sure of Platt.
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
