----- Original Message -----
From: <gmbbradford@netscape.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: MD Many Truths-Many Worlds
> Hi Ed,
> Welcome to the discussion.
>
> > GLENN:
> > Maybe you missed my point. Whenever there is a moral issue between the
> > intellectual and social level, the evolutionary moral hierarchy says
> > to side with intellect. However, if siding with the intellect undermines
> > the social level to the detriment of the intellectual level, you should
> > side with the social. Depending on the issue, there may be compelling
> > arguments for either course. What guidance does MOQ provide for this
> > predicament? None.
> >
> > ED:
> > The guidance, as I see it, is a judgment as to which choice will be more
> > dynamic, the one that potentiates further or greater evolution. I doubt
we
> > will ever be able to confidently make such decisions in all situations,
but
> > the guidance is assisted from knowing where we are headed. More on this
> > below.
>
> This is basically what Platt said, so I think you also missed my point.
> What I'm saying is that you've *already* considered this guidance about
> choosing the more dynamic level, but something is also tugging you to side
> with the social level. If both tugs have near equal merit, what does MOQ
> advise you to do? Go back to the moral hierarchy as you suggest? Well,
> you've already done that! It would just be a vicious cycle to do it again.
> Instead you end up making a decision based on a vague sense of quality or
> morality or intuition, just as anyone does currently.
>
> > ED:
> > That trivial examples work provides at least some basic credence to the
MOQ
> > framework. The MOQ does need to be tested with more complex issues.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Similar
> > to Goldbach's conjecture that says, "every even integer is the sum of
two
> > numbers that are either primes or 1." It works well for simple examples
like
> > 12 = 5 + 7 = 1 + 11. Yet we aren't sure the conjecture works for
extremely
> > large numbers, it hasn't been proved. But for all the numbers checked so
far
> > it has worked.
> >
> > Rationally, Goldbach's conjecture is either proveable for all integers
or
> > not. If it is not proveable (which is not to say it was proved false),
the
> > conjecture may still hold. In this case it would take a leap of faith to
> > trust it with extremely large untested numbers.
> >
> > Curiously, the author of the text I took this example from wrote, "The
> > numerical data suggesting the truth of Goldbach's conjecture is
> > overwhelming. ... Although this supports the feeling that Goldbach was
> > correct in his conjecture, it is far from a mathematical proof, and all
> > attempts to prove it have been completely unsuccessful." Note the word
> > "feeling." Here we are in the rational rigor of mathematical patterns
and
> > find that mathematicians, without proof, rely upon their "feelings," or
> > intuition, or a sense of Quality for direction.
>
> Yes, yes, of course they do. But in this case the "sense of Quality" that
> leads them to believe in Goldbach's conjecture is overwhelming rational
> evidence. It has been verified to numbers as high as 20 billion, according
> to one source. It's only natural to think, if the conjecture were wrong,
> you'd have found a counterexample by now.
>
> I'm not sure why you are bringing up Goldbach's conjecture right after a
> discussion of Pirsig's moral hierarchy, except to bring up the fact that
intuition is involved in believing either are true. I'll grant you that on
principle, but I hope you see there is a world of difference. Analogous
> support of MOQ's moral hierarchy framework would have it solving, with
> consensus agreement, 20 billion moral dilemmas without a solution to a
single moral issue being left to doubt.
>
> Of course this is impractical but we don't need to go through the trouble
> because there's a counterexample (Platt's grandchildren vs posting to
> this forum) to the moral framework. If you disagree this is a
> counter-example, as Platt has, I've at least thrown into question the
> efficacy of the framework for harder moral issues.
>
> The moral framework is useful for understanding why a moral issue is
> difficult or simple, but it doesn't offer any practical value for
> solutions, since trivial ones can be solved without it and harder ones
> are not guided by it.
> Glenn
>
> ----------
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://home.netscape.com/webmail/
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 16:00:46 BST