To: Platt
From: Roger
I was concerned with your accusation that I was sidestepping the issue, so I
scrolled through the beginning of the thread. I am sorry, but you are
probably correct. I never addressed your initial questions. Let me do so
now.
PLATT:
Perhaps you're right. I take it you disagree with physicist Freeman
Dyson that "Mind, as manifest by the capacity to make choices, is to
some extent inherent in every atom" and that you disagree with Pirsig
who wrote, "But in modern quantum physics all that is changed.
Particles "prefer" to do what they do."
ROG:
No, I don't happen to subscribe to Mr. Dyson's "personal theology." Do you?
And again, nothing I have said disagrees with Pirsig, does it? (by the way,
my personal beliefs (and Pirsig's) are every bit as much in agreement with
quantum physics as Mr Dyson's.
PLATT:
My guess is that such sentences are too metaphorically strong for your
liking and thus present a false picture. Instead of "awareness" would
you accept Whitehead's much less provocative word "prehension" to
describe a particle's response to an observation or an atom's
sensitivity to its environment?
ROG:
Sure. No problem.
PLATT:
It seems to me that some form of awareness at the inorganic level, no
matter how dim, (and no matter how described) is required if the MOQ
theory of value-centered evoution driven by Dynamic forces is to hold
up. You cannot strive for something better without at least "sensing" in
some fashion or other a more desirable state to aspire to.
ROG:
I agree with something that I think Jonathan wrote. He mentioned that it is
probably more correct to say that a subatomic particle is a set of value
patterns than to say that it has a set of values. I think you and Freeman
are trying to create subjective objects.
PLATT:
I'd be interested to know at what point in the hierarchy of evolution you
consider that "awareness," "choice," and "sense" become
meaningless, and how you think those qualities can originate from
elements that lack them if indeed that is your belief.
ROG:
'Awareness' I see as applying to living things. Webster's concurs. Pirsig
writes that only living things can perceive or adjust to dynamic quality, so
i assume I have no disagreement here with him either. The Webster's
definition of 'choice' includes preference, so I guess I can live with that
word applied to subatomic processes, though again I think it would be better
to say they ARE subatomic value patterns or choices than to say they HAVE
values or choices. As for 'sense,' I think that this can be used
metaphorically, but only at the risk that people will misinterpret it to mean
that electrons are discrete, living entities. To stay clean, I would stick
with 'values' or 'value patterns' and I would avoid any of the above three
terms. (I would also avoid the term "morals" absent about a 468 page
treatise explaining how it means something WAY beyond conventional usage.)
As for how these qualities mysteriously emerge out of elements that lack
them, I refer you to Lila or to any of a couple of dozen good books on
complexity. Simpler, less complex and versatile values can combine together
and interact to form substantially more dynamic and versatile values with
degrees of freedom that do not exist in the underlying levels. Awareness is a
sophisticated version of value inherent in living things.
PLATT:
One final question. Do I detect a weakening of your confidence in the
MOQ over the years?
ROG:
I now see some minor shortcomings. His levels of values and the potential
conflicts that can arise between them were extremely insightful concepts for
me. However, it has become clear that he grossly oversimplified some issues
here, and this led to some incorrect conclusions in both his model and his
rational morality. (and yes, I do have suggestions on how they can both be
improved) I mentioned some of my minor disagreements in our recent
discussion of fundamental MOQ tenets. Note that one of my running concerns
has been his sloppiness in getting terms like 'morality', redefining them and
then applying them 'backward' to subatomic values. Now you and Jonathan and
Marco are doing the same thing with "awareness." Heck, if Pirsig does it,
why shouldn't you? Because it is of LOW QUALITY that's why!
Sorry again for not addressing you directly earlier,
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
