Hi, Platt, Matthew & alii,
Since Platt asked me to comment your views, Matt, I put
up a little paste of both posts and introduced a few
comments. Despite a few (probably mainly esthetic)
divergences, I believe we are in close agreement. Returns
will be welcome.
[Matthew]
I. Platt Holden wrote:
"Since according to your theory your unique
predispositions and experiences
dictated your answer to the free will/determinism question
it would seem
your answer was beyond your control. Thus, if I answer that
there is indeed
such a thing as free will, my answer would also be beyond
my control."
My (your) response:
My answer wasn't beyond "my" control since "I" am only a
collection of
predispositions and experiences and it is these that
dictate my answer.
There is no "me" that is somehow lacking control. Free
will isn't really
the illusion, it is humankind's false sense of self that
is. To me, this
fits perfectly with MOQ. An individual is no more than a
collection of
biological, social, and intellectual value patterns that
are shaped by
predispositions and experiences. These patterns are then
ever-changing due
to Dynamic Quality.
[Denis]
Also my position. Absolute agreement here.
II. Platt Holden wrote:
"With both answers determined and beyond our control,
which is true? Or is
truth always relative to one¹s unique predispositions and
experiences?"
My response:
This seems to me to be a somewhat absurd question if I
understand it
correctly. Whether or not there is free will is completely
independent of
what you or I may think about it. I would argue that there
is no free will,
but this doesn't make it so. Truth is not relative to my
beliefs or anyone
else's.
[Denis]
Innuendo : truth doesn't exist in the way Matthew seems to
infer. There is no "real" reality, only Quality, about
which you can't say much except in the way of analogy.
Perhaps this is what you meant Matt, but I prefer to err on
the side of caution.
III. Richard Chamberlain wrote:
> This does not destroy humanity or the individual as
some suspect, it merely
> redefines them. An individual is no more than the sum of
his or her
> predispositions and experiences.
"Hmmm - don't think so. What about the direct moments of
quality perception?
Though maybe the final goal is true awareness of
predispositions and
experiences and the transcendence thereof - like finally
learning the rules
and then throwing them away because - hey I can't be
bothered living
tethered to a list of rules and definitions. Some people
go straight there
anyway. "
My response:
"Direct moments of quality perception," as you call them,
ARE experiences.
They are the essence of life. Quality = experience. It
not only makes us
who we are, it IS who we are. In that sense, you are
suggesting that we
transcend Quality, and that's impossible.
[Denis]
Well, I agree, but I think the disagreement between you is
artificial. You argue a static/dynamic split without saying
so, and then disagree on fine points of distinction. If you
were to precise your thoughts you'd probably find out you
have the same conceptions (well, I think...). ;)
IV. David Lind wrote:
"Seems there's at least a third alternate to determined
or random.
What if life is "pre-programmed"? Neither random or up to
us to
choose what will happen. What if we are merely playing our
parts in
some grand cosmic play? (I don't necessarily believe this,
but it's
possible, isn't it?)"
My response:
I don't exactly know what you mean, but let me try to
clarify my position
and see if that helps. I don't think anyone would argue
that human actions
aren't determined by human will. That is, ultimately,
human beings take
actions that they wish to take. However, the question
still remains as to
what determines human will. Actually, the first question
is whether or not
it is determined at all. I think that the answer is
obviously yes, because
if something isn't determined, then it HAS to be random,
and I don't think
this is a viable position. Now, this doesn't give us the
ability to predict
future actions. Things are still based on probabilities,
as quantum theory
dictates and Pirsig recognizes, but these are still
determined by Quality
(predispositions and experiences in the case of humans) and
aren't just
random.
[Denis]
This sounds like a classic dilemma straight out from ZMM.
If you choose Determinism, you're damned, and damned again
if you choose Randomness. The answer is to go "between the
horns".
First thing, will. If "choice" is understood as the
result of conflicting patterns, then there is no "will" to
speak of. The self, abstracted from a collection of
patterns sees the result of the conflict and of course
attributes it to himself, calling his "decision" an act of
his "will" (especially if he has been praised for it, of
course...). At the intellectual level, this seems a
coherent answer, but it is no more coherent than the view I
present here. Of course I'm writing this post because I
want to, but this only means that my intellectual patterns'
needs have temporarily won the constant battle between the
conflicting needs of the various levels that constitute
"me". My desire to produce intellectual patterns (or to
"re-produce" themselves, if you're into memetics) perhaps
backed up by my desires for social representation, have
overcome my biological desires for rest, food and
nicotine... :)
As for Determinism/Randomness, my answer is to look at
what it means in MOQ terms.
Determinism, from the point of view of experience, means
that a phenomena unfolds in a way that doesn't contradict
established patterns : a stone falls like it always did (or
rather according to my belief it will always fall), or I'll
choose strawberry over vanilla like I always did if I have
the choice, since one flavour is of a higher value than the
other (for me). Different levels with different capacities
for change (dynamism), but same basic value interaction.
Randomness, or the other end, means that no patterns have
been, or can be, established for a particular phenomena.
Therefore, those phenomenas unfold in a static void
(intellectually speaking). Value interaction still happens,
but beyond our intellectual "line of sight".
David Lind speaks of a "grand cosmic play", but this
isn't exactly my point. I still believe that evolution is a
non-teleologic thing (it doesn't have a "goal", or
direction). Rather, it seeks to escape already existing
patterns, as to avoid stagnation. Life and Society and
Intellect exist because it is better than not to, and
because it allows more Dynamism than the levels below. In
the end, our "selves" (holistic ones, not the little
homonculus stuff) are part of this evolution, which isn't
caused, determined or random. It just is. Determinism is a
notion that springs from a SOM causation background. Stones
fall because different inorganic values interact, rather
than because one is the "cause" of the other. Same for us :
choices are the results of the interactions, not their
cause. Some interactions are of the static kind, because
we've assigned intellectual patterns to the values, and
some of dynamic kind, because we haven't, or just are about
to, or because we already have but are about to assign new
ones instead. You want to remember that the Static/Dynamic
split isn't a "reality" (whatever this means) but a useful
intellectual pattern of value, that enables us to make
distinctions about our experiences, and the way we assign
good or bad values to them. Man is the measure of things
static and dynamic. Beyond this is Quality, about which the
less said the better.
Is there a disagreement between us, or isn't there ? I
wonder.
[Matthew in MD Truth]
I've been asked to describe my position on the issue of
truth. Well, here
it goes:
First of all, we have to distinguish between facts and
theories. Getting
them confused can get us into a lot of trouble. Facts are
true propositions
about the universe. Examples include "2 + 2 = 4" (an
analytic fact) and "my
desk is made of wood" (a synthetic fact). The truth of
propositions is
independent of belief.
[Denis]
Ouch ! I wonder if you're not a tad too extreme here. 2+2=4
is "true" if we all agree about the premises of
mathematics, if we all share the same beliefs about numbers
and their relations. We shouldn't start to confuse the
internal coherence of a system with "Truth". If I define a
system by saying : I posit that a sound X + a sound Y
always equals a sound XY, then the proposition
"ouchi"+"da"="ouchida" is a valid one for the system. In
classic mathematics it simply has no meaning. Numbers don't
refer to something "more real" than my stupid example
(though I admit they are FAR more useful ;) ). They are
intellectual patterns, that's all.
You must understand that in both examples to say it is
"true" means that since you state it is true then it is !
Well, in your mathematic example I suppose I must admit
it's a bit more elaborated (you'd have to define a unit, an
addition and all that) but at the core it is the same.
I think you have the same opinion (I suppose it's what you
meant by "analytic facts are true by definition") but it
needs pointing out.
Likewise, the proposition "My desk is made of wood" is a
good belief about your desk, but wait until the wood has
fossilized (is that english ?) and you'll see that the
truth of this proposition has evolved with the patterns it
describes. "Truth" isn't absolute, it's a good belief.
Agreed, it is difficult to hold another view, or to term
this belief "bad", but some "immaterial" things like morals
have the same level of certainty : all societies have a
taboo against killing, for example. The extent of it might
be discussed (whether it applies to people outside your
group, or to certain situations), but not its internal
validity. Except, of course, if you start discussing the
foundations of the belief system : "Society is not meant to
protect its individuals", "wood is a part of a living
organism, and your desk isn't a living organism,etc." It
all depends on axioms, definitions, in the end. Which
beliefs you hold.
..
A proposition held as a belief is verified in one of
two ways. If it is analytic, it is verified by logic, for
analytic facts
are true by definition. If it is synthetic, it is verified
by sensation and
perception, for this is the way in which we experience
existence. Sensation
and perception, of course, can be flawed, so we can never
be absolutely
certain of the accuracy of synthetic beliefs, but there are
nevertheless
facts "out there" that are independent of belief.
..
[Denis]
Well, that seems a bit confused. Since we can't be sure,
how can you state that "there are nevertheless facts that
are independent of beliefs" ? Either they are analytic and
therefore their "truth" (I prefer "logical coherence") is
conditioned by their being founded on beliefs (also called
"axioms"), or they are synthetic, and therefore subject to
falsification, like theories.
..
Theories, on the other hand, are another can of worms.
They are merely ways
of explaining a group of facts (or propositions that we
believe to be facts)
and how they are related. Theories can be neither true nor
false. They are
merely either useful or not useful (or somewhere in
between). The theory of
gravity isn't true, it is just a way of explaining why
objects seem to
always stick to the Earth. It is highly useful in
predicting future
behavior, so useful, in fact, that it is now called a law.
However,
Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, is more
useful than Newton's
theory of gravity, because it explains and predicts facts
more accurately.
Pirsig notes how he believes that the same is true for MOQ
as compared to
SOM. It is only in this sense that "truth" is relative and
philosophical
pragmatism is a viable position.
[Denis]
Complete agreement. Except for a few points we seem to have
similar beliefs. Yes, beliefs. That's all there is. ;)
..
So, where does free will fit into this idea of truth. The
first step, from
my point of view, is to deal with our conception of self.
I believe that
the self is merely a collection of predispositions and
experiences. This
position logically rules out the possibility of free will
in the traditional
sense for there is no entity left to exercise such
"freedom". Of course,
the question of the existence of a self independent of
predispositions and
experiences is an empirical one, and the answer is that it
is either a fact
or a false proposition. In my view, there is no empirical
evidence that
supports it as a fact. This leaves us with two logical
possibilities.
Either human actions are determined by predispositions and
experiences or
they are completely random. Both could be held as
theories, but one is
infinitely more useful than the other.
-Matt
[Denis]
Hey ! Which one ? That's no very nice to leave us here
panting with anticipation !!! ;o)
I'll continue with Platt.
[Platt]
Hi Matthew, Denis and Group:
[...]
I agree that the creative power that science attributes to
randomness is a
cop out due to ignorance. But the big question in a
deterministic, cause and
effect chain going all the back to quantum probabilities
determined by
Quality is: ‘What determined Quality?’ Logic and reason
inevitably lead to
infinite regress. A strict determinist always ends up in a
universe sitting on
the back of the proverbial turtle with turtles all the way
down.
[Denis]
Except if everyone agrees that Quality is all and cannot be
determined by anything because it is determinism and
randomness and free will and everything else : the basic
MOQ assumption. Quality is pre-intellectual. Stop the
discussion here.
[...]
Denis wrote:
It is all a question of belief, after all. We don’t give
‘true’ answers so in the
largest sense there isn’t and ‘either...or’ in a
metaphysical sense. But inside
a system of beliefs, if logical consistency is an accepted
part of it (as in the
MOQ) there can exist incompatible propositions. So once
such a proposition
has been determined to be the best, either by any
individual or by a group,
the logically opposed must be rejected as ‘bad,’ or the MOQ
is preaching for
cultural relativism (which might be summarily described as
a ‘yeah,
whatever...’ position.)
This appears to be similar to Matthew’s version of truth,
and to me it seems
to come close to saying truth is mere opinion. But, I could
be wrong. Denis,
would you care to comment on Matthew’s version, and vice
versa? Are we
stuck with the self-contradictory statement: ‘It’s true we
can never know
what’s really true’?
Platt
[Denis]
Been there. Done that. Thanks for the asking, Platt, I've
pointed out where Matt's and my position are similar and
where they differ. I think we've got more common points
than differences, anyway.
Is "Truth" mere opinion ? Hum, how comes I smell that
fishy SOM perfume ? Truth must be understood in the MOQ as
a good intellectual pattern of value. The best one given
the intellectual environment of the question being asked.
We must remember that the feeling that comes with DQ does
not *decrease* objectivity, it *increases* it. A good
intellectual pattern is the most accurate.
Volumes could be written about why and it wouldn't make
more sense : it is just confirmed by thousands of years of
intellectual evolution. Truth isn't "mere opinion", it's
the best one. If history is any guide, it won't be the best
one forever, but at the moment it is discovered/created, it
is.
"What's really true" isn't a good question, it's a SOM
one. What's really true is Quality, and it isn't
intellectual, social, biological or inorganic. It's all of
it and more. Our statements, propositions and facts are
intellectual patterns. They mimic Quality, but aren't the
whole thing.
The statement you propose is only self-contradictory in a
SOM background. Translate it into MOQ terms and the problem
disolves : "It is a good intellectual pattern to assume we
can never know the sole and only intellectual pattern
that's good.". Under the purview that many truths exist
under the MOQ, the answer would be : "The *sole and only*
intellectual pattern that's good doesn't exist, there will
always be a best one. The proposition is absurd."
"Truth" doesn't exist in an ideal platonic plane of
existence, it's a myth that drives intellectual evolution.
It's just as well replaced by goodness, and if this
"copernican revolution" takes place, it might solve a lot
of problems. Or not. Only time will tell.
I have hope.
Denis
______________________________________________________
Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST